| OF 306-60 Day FRN (Published 2-22-19)-Comments & Adjudication MAY 2019 | |||||||
| Agency/Public | FedReg, Date, Number | Section | Original Text | Recommended Change | Comment/Rationale | Accept/Reject Comment/Rationale | Number of Comments Submitted |
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2162 | Dear Acting Director Margaret Weichert, Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to Optional Form 306 (OF306). One of the changes to OF306 would require job applicants for federal jobs and federal contract employment to disclose their past completion of a diversion program. This change is counter to criminal justice research showing that people should not face extensive employment barriers because of past mistakes and is counter to the intent of diversion programs which allow people accused of minor mistakes to avoid a criminal record and the 45,000 collateral consequences that are associated with a record. First, people who have made mistakes in their past - including those who may have been convicted of a crime - deserve second chances to be successful. Meaningful employment is a key milestone, which helps people move forward in their lives. The federal government should be a model employer for second chances, and this rule would instead set a horrible precedent for private employers. Second, people who have completed a diversion program have not been convicted of a crime. In the interest of justice, courts offer diversion programs so that people are not saddled with the lifelong burden of a criminal record. This rule change would essentially undo the will of the courts by forcing people to reveal whether they've completed a diversion program. |
As Americans, we value hard work and strong qualifications, and believe that those qualities should allow you to advance professionally. The proposed rule conflicts with those values and will unnecessarily block the pathway to success for too many Americans, their families, and their communities. | 2,192 | |||
| American Bar Association-Professional Organization | [email protected]; 5-1-19 | 4. The proposed amendment conflicts with the rehabilitative mission of the criminal justice system. Under American jurisprudence, the criminal justice system—in addition to punishment, incapacitation, specific and general deterrence, and restitution to victims—should seek to rehabilitate those within its custody. As noted in the Oxford Bibliographies on the subject of rehabilitation, Beth M. Huebner writes in the introduction8: Rehabilitation is a central goal of the correctional system. This goal rests on the assumption that individuals can be treated and returned to a crime free lifestyle. Rehabilitation was a central feature of corrections in the first half of the twentieth century. The favorability of rehabilitation programming declined in the 1970s and 1980s but has gained favor in recent years. Rehabilitation includes a broad array of programs including mental health, substance abuse, and educational services. During the 1990’s, however, law and policy-makers had adopted a more punitive approach, i.e., a “get tough on crime” campaign, that has failed to produce promised savings to taxpayers or increase public safety. Research indicates that current criminal justice system reform efforts aimed at treating the root causes of crime in lieu of traditional prosecution and incarceration are more effective in the long-term9. By moving appropriate cases away from costly trials and incarceration, diversion programs help lower system costs to taxpayers and free up prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals to focus on higher priorities. These programs help keep justice-involved persons employed, housed, and together with their families while repaying their debt to society as determined by a court. We should support such programs and not impose unnecessary obstacles to them, which we believe the proposed addition to Question 9 on the OF 306 would do. We urge you not to ask about a candidate’s participation in diversion programs until the point at which they may be under active consideration of a security clearance. Thank you for your consideration of the ABA’s comments. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Kenneth Goldsmith in the ABA Governmental Affairs Office (202) 662-1789 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Robert M. Carlson 8 |
May 1, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management Attn: Donna McLeod 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 RE: FR Doc. # 2019-03056; ABA Opposition to Proposed Amendments to Optional Form 306 Concerning Prior Participation in Diversionary Programs Dear Ms. McLeod: On behalf of the American Bar Association (ABA), I write to urge that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reject the proposed modifications to Question 9 of the OPM Optional Form (OF) 306, relating to an applicant’s participation in a pretrial intervention or diversionary program leading to the dismissal of a criminal charge. The inclusion of the question undermines strong public policy supporting the creation of diversion programs, and it will unnecessarily restrict the pool of qualified job candidates the federal government attracts. We appreciate the government’s position that OF 306 may be used for security clearance purposes, but we believe that this vitally important purpose can be fulfilled in a constructive way by saving questions such as the current question concerning prior criminal convictions and participation in diversion programs for when they become most relevant, i.e., upon a conditional offer of employment and active screening of a person for a security clearance. The ABA is comprised of over 400,000 members representing all aspects of the legal system, including prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, academicians, correctional officials, and others. Among other relevant resources, we produce the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice on topics including Sentencing, Collateral Consequences and Discretionary Disqualifications of Convicted Persons, and our 16,000-member Criminal Justice Section has a new task force developing standards specific to diversion programs. It is from this experience and expertise that we ask you to consider the following arguments against the proposed Question 9 for the OF 306. 1. The proposed amendment directly contradicts the underlying objectives of current criminal justice reform initiatives. The federal government, along with local and state jurisdictions, have in recent years enacted significant criminal justice reform measures designed to provide treatment services in lieu of traditional prosecution and custodial sentences to those who have been affected by substance and/or mental health disorders. Driven by such factors as escalating opioid and other drug overdose deaths, rising imprisonment and supervision costs, and a reexamination of public policy, proactive changes May 1, 2019 Page 2 of 4 have been made to statutory schemes as well as to discretionary programs fostered by the courts, probation and pretrial services, law enforcement and correction agencies, prosecutors, defense counsel and treatment providers alike1. It is notable that while these diverse criminal justice stakeholders were able to coalesce into a common effort to bring about the recent passage of the First Step Act2, the OPM’s current proposal runs counter to the Administration-supported national movement to embrace alternatives to incarceration that ease persons’ transitions to lives as productive, contributing members of their community following completion of their sentence. Similar efforts, such as the “ban the box” initiatives, allow employers to consider a job candidate’s qualifications first -- without the stigma of a conviction or arrest record; they have been adopted by 34 states, the District of Columbia, and over 150 cities and counties across the country. Also, the Second Chance Act of 20073 has provided significant funding to government agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victim support and other services to individuals returning to the community from a period of incarceration. Considering the significant federal investment promoting persons’ success, we believe that the proposed Question 9, independent of any actual security clearance background check, would presents an unnecessary barrier to employment. 2. The proposed amendment will unnecessarily discriminate against those who have acted in good faith and who have made positive change in their lives. Given that most diversion type dispositions involve a substance use and/or non-threatening mental health disorder, the proposed amendment unfairly seeks to identify those who may have such an issue or engaged in a related incident that led to law enforcement contact. Although some progress has been made, stigma still attaches to those who may suffer from these conditions, regardless of whether they have been arrested, prosecuted or convicted. The National Academies Press released a report entitled Ending Discrimination Against People with Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders: The Evidence for Social Change (2016) 4, which states: Although much of the research discussed above referred to people with mental illness, people with substance use disorders also experience structural discrimination in many forms. A national survey of people in recovery from alcohol and drug problems and their families (Hart Research Associates, 2001) documented barriers to treatment, such as lack of insurance and trouble obtaining insurance, the cost of treatment, and lack of access to treatment programs. They also reported fear of discrimination at work and previous experiences of being denied a job or promotion. Despite the hurdles people with substance use disorders face, the implementation of legislation such as the ADA and awarding of federal disability 1 See, e.g., National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction at https://niccc.csgjusticecenter.org/, Collateral Consequences Resource Center at http://ccresourcecenter.org/, and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction: Law, Policy and Practice, 2018-2019 ed., by Margaret Colgate Love, et al. (2018) available at https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/Collateral-Consequences-of-Criminal-Conviction- Law-Policy-and-Practice-2018-2019-ed/p/106154183. 2 Public Law 115-391. 3 Public Law 110-119, 122 Stat. 657. 4 Available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23442/ending-discrimination-against-people-with-mental-and-substanceuse- disorders. May 1, 2019 Page 3 of 4 benefits can be more restrictive for people with substance use disorders than for those with mental illness (Join Together, 2003).5 Many of the participants who enroll in treatment are acutely aware of this stigma, including job discrimination, and thus are eager to accept the resources available through a diversionary or deferred adjudication programs that will not show up on their “rap-sheet.” It is also important to note that these problem-solving or collaborative court programs are often long-term (i.e., one year or more), highly structured, may require that a participant complete intense drug and/or mental health treatment, involve probation supervision and regular meetings with a judge and court team, and they demand a significant period of sobriety and pro-social conduct before graduation. In other words, many of these programs are not easy to complete, and require a significant commitment on behalf of those who are granted such an alternative resolution to their case. Thus, to then deny their hardearned “anonymity” when applying for federal employment would undoubtedly diminish the numbers and incentive for program participation. 3. The proposed amendment will dismantle decades of positive contributions that collaborative courts have made to American jurisprudence and to society at large. Organizations such as the ABA and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) have been national leaders in the development and proliferation of problem-solving courts since 1994. In establishing any such program, proponents must work closely with law enforcement as well as prosecutorial and corrections agencies to help their programs reduce recidivism rates for those who engage in a supervised criminal justice setting. The latest biannual publication of the National Drug Court Institute, entitled Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Courts in the United States (2016)6, reports that: At least nine meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and multisite studies conducted by leading scientific organizations have concluded that adult drug courts significantly reduce criminal recidivism -- typically measured by rearrest rates over at least two years -- by an average of approximately 8% to 14%. The best adult drug courts were determined to reduce recidivism by 35% to 80%. Several studies included in the meta-analyses were randomized controlled experiments, which meet the highest standards of scientific rigor. [References omitted]. It is no wonder, then, that drug treatment and other collaborative courts have grown in number and stature when 20.2 million American adults (about 1 in 10, and about 65% of all U.S. inmates) have a substance use disorder, and 43.6 million (about 1 in 5) have a mental health problem. Nearly 8 million of these individuals suffer from co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders.7 Because more people are likely to be incarcerated than treated, a relatively small but growing percentage of persons are granted pretrial intervention or a diversion/deferred adjudication program. 5 Id., at page 38. 6 Available at https://www.ndci.org/wp- . Thnflicts with the rehabilitative mission of the criminal justice system. Under American jurisprudence, the criminal justice system—in addition to punishment, incapacitation, specific and general deterrence, and restitution to victims—should seek to rehabilitate those within its custody. As noted in the Oxford Bibliographies on the subject of rehabilitation, Beth M. Huebner writes in the introduction8: Rehabilitation is a central goal of the correctional system. This goal rests on the assumption that individuals can be treated and returned to a crime free lifestyle. Rehabilitation was a central feature of corrections in the first half of the twentieth century. The favorability of rehabilitation programming declined in the 1970s and 1980s but has gained favor in recent years. Rehabilitation includes a broad array of programs including mental health, substance abuse, and educational services. During the 1990’s, however, law and policy-makers had adopted a more punitive approach, i.e., a “get tough on crime” campaign, that has failed to produce promised savings to taxpayers or increase public safety. Research indicates that current criminal justice system reform efforts aimed at treating the root causes of crime in lieu of traditional prosecution and incarceration are more effective in the long-term9. By moving appropriate cases away from costly trials and incarceration, diversion programs help lower system costs to taxpayers and free up prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals to focus on higher priorities. These programs help keep justice-involved persons employed, housed, and together with their families while repaying their debt to society as determined by a court. We should support such programs and not impose unnecessary obstacles to them, which we believe the proposed addition to Question 9 on the OF 306 would do. We urge you not to ask about a candidate’s participation in diversion programs until the point at which they may be under active consideration of a security clearance. Thank you for your consideration of the ABA’s comments. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Kenneth Goldsmith in the ABA Governmental Affairs Office (202) 662-1789 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Robert M. Carlson 84Theposed amendment conflicts with the rehabilitative mission of the criminal justice system. Under American jurisprudence, the criminal justice system—in addition to punishment, incapacitation, specific and general deterrence, and restitution to victims—should seek to rehabilitate those within its custody. As noted in the Oxford Bibliographies on the subject of rehabilitation, Beth M. Huebner writes in the introduction8: Rehabilitation is a central goal of the correctional system. This goal rests on the assumption that individuals can be treated and returned to a crime free lifestyle. Rehabilitation was a central feature of corrections in the first half of the twentieth century. The favorability of rehabilitation programming declined in the 1970s and 1980s but has gained favor in recent years. Rehabilitation includes a broad array of programs including mental health, substance abuse, and educational services. During the 1990’s, however, law and policy-makers had adopted a more punitive approach, i.e., a “get tough on crime” campaign, that has failed to produce promised savings to taxpayers or increase public safety. Research indicates that current criminal justice system reform efforts aimed at treating the root causes of crime in lieu of traditional prosecution and incarceration are more effective in the long-term9. By moving appropriate cases away from costly trials and incarceration, diversion programs help lower system costs to taxpayers and free up prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals to focus on higher priorities. These programs help keep justice-involved persons employed, housed, and together with their families while repaying their debt to society as determined by a court. We should support such programs and not impose unnecessary obstacles to them, which we believe the proposed addition to Question 9 on the OF 306 would do. We urge you not to ask about a candidate’s participation in diversion programs until the point at which they may be under active consideration of a security clearance. Thank you for your consideration of the ABA’s comments. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Kenneth Goldsmith in the ABA Governmental Affairs Office (202) 662-1789 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Robert M. Carlson 8 amendment conflicts with the rehabilitative mission of the criminal justice system. Under American jurisprudence, the criminal justice system—in addition to punishment, incapacitation, specific and general deterrence, and restitution to victims—should seek to rehabilitate those within its custody. As noted in the Oxford Bibliographies on the subject of rehabilitation, Beth M. Huebner writes in the introduction8: Rehabilitation is a central goal of the correctional system. This goal rests on the assumption that individuals can be treated and returned to a crime free lifestyle. Rehabilitation was a central feature of corrections in the first half of the twentieth century. The favorability of rehabilitation programming declined in the 1970s and 1980s but has gained favor in recent years. Rehabilitation includes a broad array of programs including mental health, substance abuse, and educational services. During the 1990’s, however, law and policy-makers had adopted a more punitive approach, i.e., a “get tough on crime” campaign, that has failed to produce promised savings to taxpayers or increase public safety. Research indicates that current criminal justice system reform efforts aimed at treating the root causes of crime in lieu of traditional prosecution and incarceration are more effective in the long-term9. By moving appropriate cases away from costly trials and incarceration, diversion programs help lower system costs to taxpayers and free up prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals to focus on higher priorities. These programs help keep justice-involved persons employed, housed, and together with their families while repaying their debt to society as determined by a court. We should support such programs and not impose unnecessary obstacles to them, which we believe the proposed addition to Question 9 on the OF 306 would do. We urge you not to ask about a candidate’s participation in diversion programs until the point at which they may be under active consideration of a security clearance. Thank you for your consideration of the ABA’s comments. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Kenneth Goldsmith in the ABA Governmental Affairs Office (202) 662-1789 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Robert M. Carlsoncontent/uploads/2016/05/Painting-the-Current-Picture-2016.pdf; at page 15. 7 See NADCP, Treatment Courts Work, available at https://www.nadcp.org/treatment-courts-work/. May 1, 2019 Page 4 of 4 4. The proposed amendment conflicts with the rehabilitative mission of the criminal justice system. Under American jurisprudence, the criminal justice system—in addition to punishment, incapacitation, specific and general deterrence, and restitution to victims—should seek to rehabilitate those within its custody. As noted in the Oxford Bibliographies on the subject of rehabilitation, Beth M. Huebner writes in the introduction8: Rehabilitation is a central goal of the correctional system. This goal rests on the assumption that individuals can be treated and returned to a crime free lifestyle. Rehabilitation was a central feature of corrections in the first half of the twentieth century. The favorability of rehabilitation programming declined in the 1970s and 1980s but has gained favor in recent years. Rehabilitation includes a broad array of programs including mental health, substance abuse, and educational services. During the 1990’s, however, law and policy-makers had adopted a more punitive approach, i.e., a “get tough on crime” campaign, that has failed to produce promised savings to taxpayers or increase public safety. Research indicates that current criminal justice system reform efforts aimed at treating the root causes of crime in lieu of traditional prosecution and incarceration are more effective in the long-term9. By moving appropriate cases away from costly trials and incarceration, diversion programs help lower system costs to taxpayers and free up prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals to focus on higher priorities. These programs help keep justice-involved persons employed, housed, and together with their families while repaying their debt to society as determined by a court. We should support such programs and not impose unnecessary obstacles to them, which we believe the proposed addition to Question 9 on the OF 306 would do. We urge you not to ask about a candidate’s participation in diversion programs until the point at which they may be under active consideration of a security clearance. Thank you for your consideration of the ABA’s comments. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Kenneth Goldsmith in the ABA Governmental Affairs Office (202) 662-1789 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Robert M. Carlson |
||||
| Public-Citizen | FedRegs, 4-21-19; #0005 | The proposed changes directly contradict the federal government's recently stated position (via passage of the First Step Act, the administration's support of diversion programs for addicted offenders, etc.) to improve reentry success and facilitate employment and second chances for citizens who have paid their debts to society in various forms. They also contradict the growing bipartisan movements in states and Congress to ban the box and prevent employers from discriminating against people with a criminal record during the hiring process. Considering the federal government, especially OPM, is continually striving to reduce unnecessary paperwork and maximize efficiency wherever possible, this is also contradictory to its stated goals. Finally, the entire point of programs that serve as alternatives to incarceration is to avoid the criminal record in the first place. A major benefit of completing such programs is ensuring successful participants do not have to disclose their criminal record because it has been dismissed, expunged, or sealed. By implementing these new policies, the administration is removing incentives from participants, many of whom may opt to serve jail or prison time instead, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and inevitably perpetuating the cycle of crime, recidivism, addiction, mental health disorders, and incarceration suffered by so many in our country. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2301 | Requiring an individual to disclose participation in a diversionary program when applying for a federal job flies in the face of why we have these programs in the first place. This approach will not only hinder people getting on their feet and becoming productive members of society, it will discourage many from participating in these programs. This needs to be reversed immediately. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2477 | The decisions concerning the reformation for non -violent felons need to be made for the sole purpose of reformation and giving them a start | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | Michael DAndrea <[email protected]> | Proposed New Question | N/A | Question: In the last five years, have you been or are you currently an employee in the Executive Branch serving on a political, Schedule C, or Non-career SES appointment? If yes, then our agency may be required to obtain approval from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) before you begin employment. | I realize this is a long shot to add, but suggest to add the following question to the OF-306 or at least consider adding it to the SF-144. Currently, agencies are asking this question in the application process, but it is only needed if the person is selected. Additionally, by providing this response, the agency can reasonably determine the person's political affiliation. To avoid litigation issues from asking political questions in the application process, it would be best if OPM could help agencies collect this information on either the OF-306 of SF-144. All of the other changes you made look good! | 1 | |
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2724 | We support the President's justice reform measures. | 7 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2059 | I strongly oppose collecting information about participation in diversion programs. If a federal agency simply presumed that an individual probably was guilty of the underlying charges, or that he or she probably has an ongoing character defect that necessitated the diversion, this would violate the U.S. Constitution in more than one way (two examples being presumption of innocence and due process). Actual facts can differ greatly from allegations, and individuals often consent to diversion terms in order to avoid even a slight risk of criminal conviction. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2487 | get rid of all deep state people! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2725 | PLEASE JOIN PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS EFFORTS TO HELP THE ONE TIME OFFENDERS TO TURN THEIR LIVES AROUND. LET THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE REFORMS CONTINUE TO HELP THESE PEOPLE. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2435 | Support our President. Do not try to go against him, we are very tired of Democrats not supporting our President. We will remember who goes against himand will remember when voting time comes around. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2303 | Please stop trying to undermine President Trump's justice reform! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2726 | Stop undermining President Trump's conservative agenda, especially Justice Reforms. | 1 | ||||
| Agency--VCDP | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2253 | What purpose does this serve? A person who has successfully completed a court diversion program has no criminal record. In fat, it could be said that the very purpose of diversion is to help people who have made mistakes from having those mistakes impact their future careers. As a society, we need to be steering away from punitive measures to "deter" crime. IT DOES NOT WORK. By making people disclose if they've been through diversion, you're invalidating any and all hard work the individual has made, and associating them with criminal behaviors that they have not been charged with. It's cruel and unnecessary. If the goal is to have a higher moral standard for employees that work in the government, we should start from the highest positions first. | 1 | ||||
| Justice Action Network--Citizen--Executive Director--Holly Harris | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2247 | Dear Ms. McLeod: I am are writing in response to the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. The Justice Action Network is the largest bipartisan 501(c)(4) organization in the country advocating for criminal justice reform at the state and federal levels. From state houses to the White House, Justice Action Network and its partners have paved the way for life-changing criminal justice reforms, including sentencing reform, prison reform, re-entry reform, and more. With our substantial experience and expertise on justice reform issues specifically related to re-entry and workforce development, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Declaration for Federal Employment (OF306) because these changes would unfairly and inaccurately categorize individuals who have participated in diversion programs as individuals with a conviction. Requiring the disclosure of diversion program participation could also lead to unintended consequences that threaten public safety. Furthermore, these changes are in stark contrast with the bipartisan progress made at the federal level with the passage of the First Step Act and countless reforms enacted in numerous states. The Justice Action Networks primary concern with the proposed changes lays with the amended language to Question 9, which would require federal job applicants to disclose participation in a diversion program. Specifically, individuals who have been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed, must indicate any program participation that occurred within the past seven years (84 FR 7533). Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia currently use some form of diversion programming. Participation in a diversion program is not a conviction of a crime, and depending on the state, participation may not require any finding of guilt. However, mandating disclosure of this information on a federal job application raises participation in a diversion program to the equivalent of a criminal conviction. The individuals who have participated in and completed pretrial and intervention programs have made life-changing strides and requiring them to disclose this information only functions to exacerbate the stigma associated with a criminal history. These changes to Question 9 may also pose a threat to public safety by increasing the risk of recidivism among individuals who have completed diversion programs. Gainful employment is one of the most important factors for living a crime-free life and acts as a deterrent to any future unlawful activities. By placing an undue barrier to employment upon these individuals, the Question 9 changes may very well result in unintended consequences that lower the employment rates for at-risk populations. Many of these individuals are highly skilled workers, and increasing the barriers to employment merely serves to increase the risk of recidivism and deprive federal agencies from a talented applicant pool. Not only does Justice Action Network oppose the proposed changes to Question 9 because they link participation in a diversion program with a criminal conviction, but we also oppose these changes as they directly contradict the Trump Administrations stance on providing second chances to those who have been impacted by the justice system. Bipartisan criminal justice reform has taken hold in conservative and progressive states alike, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah. These states have taken invaluable steps towards providing second chances to the individuals who need them the most, and with the signing of the First Step Act in December, President Trump made bipartisan criminal justice reform at the federal level a reality as well. Citing this momentous bipartisan achievement, the President went one step further by proclaiming April to be Second Chance Month, embracing recidivism-reducing measures that help individuals find jobs and actively contribute to society. The adoption of this rules proposal clearly disputes the Administrations position on this issue. These new reporting requirements not only run contrary to the general consensus behind the justice reform movement, they also threaten the American way of life by stripping away second chances and opportunities for redemption by the people who need it most. Therefore, I respectfully request that OPM rescind this proposed change to OF306, and if clarification is necessary, consider language that would further the Presidents support for second chance opportunities. Sincerely, Holly Harris Executive Director Justice Action Network 444 N Capitol Street NW Washington, DC 20001 |
1 | ||||
| Agency; National Disability Rights Network | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2293 | April 23, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod RE: Comments to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod: The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) on proposed changes to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. NDRN is the non-profit membership association of protection and advocacy (P&A) agencies that are located in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the United States Territories. In addition, there is a P&A affiliated with the Native American Consortium which includes the Hopi, Navajo and San Juan Southern Paiute Nations in the Four Corners region of the Southwest. P&A agencies are authorized under various federal statutes to provide legal representation and related advocacy services, and to investigate abuse and neglect of individuals with disabilities in a variety of settings. The P&A Systems comprise the nation’s largest provider of legally-based advocacy services for persons with disabilities. NDRN is dedicated to preserving the rights of individuals with disabilities across all facets of our world. Given our experience and expertise, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they undermine the ability of people with an arrest or conviction record to compete fairly for employment while also discriminating against people of color, transgender people, people with a history of substance use and/or mental health disorders, and other communities who should be affirmatively valued and respected in the hiring process. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many 2 people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. From our experience, we have seen that mental health diversion programs provide treatment-based alternatives to criminal sanctions for persons with serious mental health problems who have come into conflict with the law.1 OPM’s proposed rule is particularly harmful for people with a history of mental health disorders who have participated in diversion programs. Individuals with mental illnesses already experience higher levels of discrimination, diversion programs allow individuals to avoid additional stigmas attached to being a part of the criminal justice system, which helps them be able to succeed because their employment opportunities are more widespread.2 The proposed changes thus undermine bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the federal First Step Act, that seek to promote and reward rehabilitation and limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on the individual, their families and communities. These proposed changes are completely at odds with President Trump’s recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. In addition, we object to the proposed requirement to report aliases on OF306 (Question 5) because it can cause severe unintended consequences to members of the transgender community and domestic violence survivors. Many transgender people change their name to better align with their gender, and some domestic violence survivors do so in order to protect their identities from their abusers. However, in many states, the process associated with a legal name change can be time consuming, cumbersome and costly, often exceeding $400 in court fees and other expenses. By creating these and other new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining the employment prospects of people with records and others who are directly impacted by the reforms, but it is also discouraging well qualified workers from both seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. 1 Lattimore PK, Broner N, Sherman R, et al: A comparison of prebooking and postbooking diversion programs for mentally ill substance-using individuals with justice involvement. J Contemp Crim Just 19:30–64, 2003 2 Zlatic, et. al., “Pretrial Diversion: The Overlooked Pretrial Services Evidence-Based Practice,” Federal Probation, 74:1 (June 2010). See also Tyuse, S., “The Effectiveness of a Jail Diversion Program in Linking Participants to Federal Entitlements and Stable Housing,” Californian Journal of Health Promotion 3: 2, 84-98 (2005). http://www.cjhp.org/Volume3_2005/Issue2/84-98-tyuse.pdf 3 We urge OPM to continue to collect this critical information and consider our opposition to the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306). If you have any questions please contact Jacqueline Hubbard at 202-408-9514 x102 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Curt Decker Executive Director |
1 | ||||
| Professional Organization--Arnold Ventures | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2271 | We are writing in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. Our organization, Arnold Ventures, is a philanthropy dedicated to maximizing opportunity and minimizing injustice. We support research, data, and evidence to drive public discourse and policy change. Through our criminal justice investments, we work to promote the effective use of diversion and also to reduce barriers to successful reentry and reintegration. Given our experience and expertise, we urge OPM to significantly limit the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (PF306) to ensure that qualified workers with an arrest or conviction record can compete fairly for employment and that people of color and other protected groups are not discriminated against in the hiring process. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19: #2639 | I feel you need to do your job, and support the president of the United States, And Stop being so treasonous against our PRESIDENTIAL office. Our freedom of speech act in no way gives you the right to be hateful and commit TREASON against our president, because he is about to empty your pockets, by sending the real criminals to prison. And yes that would be a federal prison. No hotel with a Jacuzzi. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2488 | Let president Trump make America great again without your interference | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2727 | The judicial arm of the government is operating far beyond its constitutional mandate and threatens the stability of our government. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2512 | Protect President Trumps Conservative Justice Reforms! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2308 | Please stop the ridiculous investigations and get to the bottom of the Deep State corruption. Send them all to prison for treason. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2583 | please stop undermining our President and start working with him! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-1; #2530 | PLEASE DO IT NOW!!!!!!! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2556 | Please stop undermining President Trump's conservative reforms and abandon the ridiculous regulations now. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2437 | The reports in folks.its time now to move on and ahead.time to let the PRESIDENT do his job,as promised.time to start helping this country and stop making it look bad to the world.we the people are watching,and remembering. | 1 | ||||
| Manhattan District Attorney's Office | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2278 | DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF NEW YORK ONE HOGAN PLACE New York, N. Y. 10013 (212) 335-9000 CYRUS R. VANCE, JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY April 23, 2019 Margaret Weichert, Acting Director U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20415-1000 Re: Docket number OPM-2019-0002-0001 Dear Acting Director Weichert, On behalf of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, a national leader in the utilization, funding, and promotion of diversion and reentry programs, I appreciate this opportunity to provide comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Declaration for Federal Employment’s Optional Form (OF) 306. President Trump’s proclamation of April as “Second Chance Month” called upon all Americans to commemorate this month, in part, with activities that raise public awareness about “providing those who have completed their sentences an opportunity for an honest second chance.”i It is in that spirit that I share with you my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposed new rule to require applicants for federal jobs or contractor positions to inform their employer if they have completed a diversion program. Such a rule, if enacted, would open the door to hiring discrimination for thousands of citizens, undercut the rationale for diversion programs, and potentially bring harmful unintended consequences for public safety. As such, not only is the proposed rule at odds with the President’s laudable proclamation, it threatens to undermine the central goal of the bipartisan First Step Act: increasing successful reentry. Every day, my Office extends “second chances” to justice-involved New Yorkers through diversion and reentry programs funded by our Criminal Justice Investment Initiative. Working with community-based providers and government partners, CJII creates alternatives to incarceration and helps formerly incarcerated citizens successfully reenter their communities in order to reduce recidivism and improve public safety.ii Among other signature diversion and alternative-toincarceration programs, we have invested more than $7 million in: Project Reset, which diverts people arrested for low-level offenses into tailored, community-based responses; Manhattan HOPE, which allows people arrested for low-level drug offenses to complete a treatment program in lieu of entering criminal court; and 2 Project Green Light, which provides New Yorkers who fail to answer a motor vehicle summons or pay a fine an opportunity to clear their suspensions and avoid obtaining a criminal record. We invest in diversion programs like these not only because they hold charged individuals accountable while reducing recidivism, but also because they avoid the negative collateral consequences that accompany criminal prosecution, which can ruin an individual’s chances for employment, housing, education, and military service, even years after a prosecution is complete. Indeed, central to our diversion strategy is the recognition that a criminal record reduces the likelihood of future gainful employment, which in turn increases the likelihood of future re-offense.iii Those who have paid their debt to society, whether by serving a criminal sentence or completing a criminal diversion program, should be restored to full citizenship and share in the equal rights afforded to members of their community. This is why my Office hires formerly incarcerated New Yorkers, and why we have long supported the “ban the box” movement, which has opened employment opportunities for thousands of New Yorkers by prohibiting New York employers from asking job applicants about their criminal records in most employment contexts. We are in good company on this issue. Nationally, 34 states and more than 150 cities and counties have supported similar fair hiring policies to remove the conviction history question from job applications and to delay background checks until later in the hiring process.iv This collective national movement to eliminate questions about conviction history directly bears on Americans’ ability to earn a living, support their families, contribute to their communities, and remain arrest-free. Formerly incarcerated people are unemployed at a rate of more than 27 percent – higher than the total U.S. unemployment rate during the Great Depression, according to a study by the Prison Policy Initiative.v Diversion programs, such as my Office’s Project Reset, aim to produce better outcomes – outcomes that ensure individuals who have made a single mistake are not shadowed by that mistake for years to come when they seek work. Ninety-eight percent of teens who have been diverted to Project Reset complete its two sessions of interventions, according to the Center for Court Innovation, and recidivism among that group is less than 10 percent.vi The Trump administration’s new rule for Optional Form 306 would stigmatize people who have demonstrated a commitment to charting a new life course. In so doing, this rule would make it more difficult for them to obtain a federal job and create a greater likelihood that they would reoffend. This, I believe, is in conflict with President Trump’s stated goal and those of the bipartisan legislators who passed the historic First Step Act. “During Second Chance Month, we draw attention to the challenges that former inmates face and the steps we can take to ensure they have the opportunity to become contributing members of society,” President Trump stated in his proclamation. How do we, as a society, take steps to ensure that fellow citizens who have paid their dues become contributing members of society? We should focus on their future, not their past, and ban questions about diversion in the federal hiring process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking. If you have any questions, please contact me at 212-335-9000. 3 Sincerely, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. i Whitehouse.gov. March 29, 2019. “Proclamation on Second Chance Month, 2019.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-second-chance-month-2019/ ii CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance. “Manhattan District Attorney’s Criminal Justice Investment Initiative.” https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Criminal-Justice-Investment-Innitiativestatus- report-March-2019.pdf iii Id. iv National Employment Law Project. “Ensuring People With Convictions Have A Fair Chance To Work.” https://www.nelp.org/campaign/ensuring-fair-chance-to-work/ v Couloute, Lucius and Daniel Kopf. July 2018. “Out of Prison & Out of Work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people.” https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html vi Dalve, Kimberly and Becca Cadoff. January 2019. “An Evaluation of a Pre-Arraignment Diversion Program in New York City.” https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2019/projectreset_eval_2019.pdf |
1 | ||||
| Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform--Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1991 | I am strongly opposed to adding the question about diversion programs to federal job applications. The purpose of these programs is to right the wrong of the person's actions. People who have gone this route have a low recidivism rate. A judge has determined that their offenses were not so serious that they need to be sent away to prison, and that the program will in fact bring about the desired change in their behavior. Maryland courts have had excellent success with diversion programs. Let them work. Do not punish people who have successfully fulfilled their requirements by endangering their employment. Thank you. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2641 | Please stop the deep state from undermining our President's conservative reforms in the justice department. It is discouraging to see the lack of respect for The President of the United States who has accomplished so much to benefit the citizens of our country. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; ##2499 | stop the Deep State from undermining PresidentTrumps Conservative Justice Reforms! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2730 | Please don't undermine president Trump's conservative justice reforms. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2514 | Dear officers, please let Potus Trump his job, Stop standing in the way of MAGA. with regards Ron. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2344 | Stop the Deep State from Undermining President Trump's Conservative Justice Reforms! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2584 | Do not interfere with President Trump's Conservative Justice reforms. People deserve a chance after they have made a mistake , in order to prevent recidivism. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2311 | Sirs, your proposed regulation requiring federal job applicants to disclose participation in diversionary programs is ill-conceived. We need to be doing evertything we can to support those trying to be a productive part of society. Please abandon this pointless regulation. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2472 | I urge you to Stop Undermining President Trump and Abandon your insane regulation. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2533 | PleYase write your comment here. You people took a oath to uphold the constitution in this country. Now is the time for you to get inline with our president and stop trying to make a mess of our country. President Trump has fought hard to make this country work again and even with lies and deceit he is still having great success. Again time is now for you to work for the people. THANK YOU |
1 | ||||
| JustLeadershipUSA--Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0639 | Dear Ms. McLeod: Our organization JustLeadershipUSA - founded and led by people directly impacted by the criminal legal system - write to express our concerns about the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. JustLeadershipUSA is a national criminal justice reform organization founded on the belief that those closest to the problem are closest to the solution but furthest from power and resources. Given our lived experiences with the criminal legal system, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Declaration for Federal Employment (OF306). Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM has expanded by adding a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like. Participation in pretrial diversion programs is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pretrial diversion programs serve as an alternative to incarceration that allow people to seek the necessary help and/or treatment they need. Diversion programs provide individuals, especially those that come from under-resourced and disinvested communities lacking access to opportunity, with an opportunity to succeed and avoid a permanent conviction on their record. This policy change undermines the purpose of these programs and further hinders employment opportunities for directly impacted people. Further limiting employment opportunities for people who already face myriad barriers to employment is cruel and would negate any of the criminal justice reforms the President and Congress supported in the FIRST STEP Act. The proposed policy would not only undermine the employment prospects of justice involved people, but this rule further excludes them from accessing basic human needs due to employment barriers. If President Trump and his administration truly support the criminal justice reform policies intended to help people leaving incarceration, OPM will not move forward with this change in OF306. Thank you for your consideration. |
1 | ||||
| National Legal Aid & Defender Association--Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2286 | 61:7NLADA April 23, 2019 Via Regulations.gov Charles S. Phalen, Jr. Director National Background Investigations Bureau Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW Washington, DC 20415 Re: Proposed Regulation OPM-2019-0002-0001 Dear Mr. Phalen: I write on behalf of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) to express deep concern regarding the proposed OPM regulation for the Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306, which would require candidates for federal employment to disclose whether they had participated in a pretrial diversion or intervention program. NLADA is America's oldest and largest nonprofit association devoted to excellence in the delivery of legal services to those who cannot afford counsel. We provide advocacy, guidance, information, training, and technical assistance for members of the equal justice community, especially those working in public defense and civil legal aid. For more than a century, we have connected and supported people across the country committed to justice for all. We are active in national discussions with our public defender and civil legal aid membership, peer organizations, and government agencies about improving justice systems and enhancing community safety through innovative approaches to pretrial justice. We see serious problems with the proposed regulation cited above: 1. The proposed requirement to disclose participation in pretrial diversion and intervention programs would reduce the effectiveness of these programs by creating barriers to employment and re-entry into society. The proposal to add a requirement to Question 9 that candidates disclose whether they had "Been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed" undermines the purpose of pretrial diversion and intervention programs. Diversion and intervention programs are a substantial component of many criminal justice systems: by a 2013 tally, there are 2,719 Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs, 298 pretrial diversion programs, and 157 pre-plea or diversionary adult drug court programs in this country.' These programs have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing incarceration, recidivism, and justice system costs.2 Pretrial diversion and intervention programs are motivated by the observation that, for a broad array of offenses, conviction, incarceration, and the lifelong collateral consequences that follow are not an effective means of reducing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation 1901 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW SUITE 500 • WASHINGTON, DC 20006 • (202) 452-0620 National Legal Aid & Defender Association and reintegration into society following contact with the justice system. Indeed, a major component of pretrial diversion and intervention programs design is that they allow people who have had contact with the justice system to access the resources they need and lead a productive life without carrying the collateral consequences for employment, inter alia, that a conviction would carry.3 Successful completion of a diversion program typically results in the dismissal of related charges.' In line with standards and recommendations by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, these programs are often accompanied by automatic expungement, so that participation in the program cannot be held against the individual later.5 The proposed regulation would upend the logic underpinning diversion and intervention programs by effectively changing them from initiatives that facilitate re-entry into society into barriers to re-entry and gainful employment. The disclosure requirement re-introduces harmful collateral consequences that pretrial diversion and intervention programs are designed to avert. The proposed regulation jeopardizes the effectiveness of a widely used and successful tool of criminal justice. This requirement should be removed from the regulation. 2. The proposed requirement to disclose participation in pretrial diversion and intervention programs is unclear and overbroad. For any federal job candidate who has participated in a pretrial diversion or intervention program that included automatic expungement, it will likely be unclear to the candidate whether their expungement supersedes the disclosure requirement stated in the proposed revision to Question 9. This lack of clarity is likely to create confusion and a chilling effect on people applying after having had charges or records expunged. Any pre-employment questionnaire that requires disclosure of prior involvement with the criminal justice system reflects the same systemic bias against low-income people and communities of color that pervades the justice system, and thereby unduly discriminates against those communities. Furthermore, access to employment is a key factor in disrupting pathways into the criminal justice system and in reducing recidivism.6 Creating barriers to employment for people who have been involved in the criminal justice system is counterproductive to the goals of reducing crime and making communities safer/ The requirement of any disclosures of criminal justice system involvement must be warranted by the peculiarities of the position or the employing agency. This standard does not comport with the proposed blanket requirement for all federal employment. The proposed requirement is overbroad and not reasonably linked to the position or hiring agencies in question. This requirement is unjust and should be removed from the proposed regulation. Additionally, please note the error in the proposed revision to Question 11, which reads "awaiting a trail" instead of "awaiting a trial" (emphasis added). In summary, the proposed regulation's requirement for disclosure of participation in pretrial diversion and intervention programs is overbroad and misguided. As proposed, these requirements offend the notion of equal justice by entrenching discrimination against low-income communities and communities of color. The requirements undermine efforts to reduce recidivism and facilitate accused individuals' and convicted individuals' return to society. They create barriers to employment for countless capable job-seekers. They undermine pretrial diversion and intervention programs that have been shown to be costeffective, successful in reducing reliance on jails, and valuable in making communities safer. We urge that these requirements be removed from the regulation. 1901 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 l TEL (202) 452-0620 l WWW.NLADA.ORG Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Don Saunders Senior Vice President, Strategic Alliances National Legal Aid and Defender Association 1 CENTER FOR HEALTH & JUSTICE AT TASC, No ENTRY: A NATIONAL SURVEY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVERSION PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES 7 (2013), available at http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/public ations/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report web.pdf. 2 See, e.g., MICHAEL REMPEL ET AL., NU'S MULTISITE EVALUATION OF PROSECUTOR-LED DIVERSION PROGRAMS: STRATEGIES, IMPACTS, AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2018), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/grants/251665.pdf. 3 See, e.g., A Second Change - If You Can Pay for It, COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES RESOURCE CENTER (Dec. 19, 2016), https://ccresourcecenterorg/2016/12/19/a-second-chance-if-you-can-afford-it. 4 See, e.g., Pretrial Diversion, NAT'L CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES (Sep. 28, 2017), http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/pretrial-diversion.aspx. 5 NAT'L ASS'N OF PRETRIAL SERVS. AGENCIES, PROMISING PRACTICES IN PRETRIAL DIVERSION 28, available at https://netforumpro.com/public/temp/Clientlmages/NAPSA/20b9d126-60bd-421a-bcbf- 1d12da015947.pdf. 6 See, e.g., Wendy R. Calaway & Jennifer M. Kinsley, Rethinking Bail Reform, 52 U. RICH. L. REV. 795, 826-27 (2018); Laura I. Appleman, Nickel and Dimed into Incarceration: Cash-Register Justice in the Criminal System, 57 B.C. L. REV. 1483, 1536 (2016); Mark T. Berg & Beth M. Huebner, Reentry and the Ties that Bind: An Examination of Social Ties, Employment, and Recidivism, 28 JUST. Q. 382 (2011); Gordon Bazemore & Jeanne Stinchcomb, A Civic Engagement Model of Reentry: Involving Community Through Service and Restorative Justice, 68 FED. PROBATION 14 (2004). 7 See Nat'l Employment Law Project, Ban the Box: U.S. Cities, Counties, and States Adopt Fair Hiring Policies (Apr. 4, 2019), https://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiringstate- and-local-guide. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2557 | When President Trump signed conservative justice reform into law, it was a huge victory in the fight to fix our justice system. Do NOT undermine that reform! | 1 | ||||
| Stanford-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0060 | Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to Optional Form 306. I am commenting on the proposed change to OF306 that would require federal job applicants to disclose their past completion of a diversion program. The diversion program was created to minimize barriers to employment for citizens who have made minor mistakes, as it is well established that inhibiting employment increases the likelihood that a person will commit further crimes. The federal government should model a research-driven, rehabilitative and "second chances" position with regards to citizens who have committed minor offenses. We want people to be employed, not unemployable, and working toward life as an asset to our society. In the interest of creating a better society, the federal government should set the precedent that people who have been through diversion programs are employable and should not be identified as criminal in their job application. People who have completed a diversion program have not been convicted of a crime. Making this change to the application form would essentially undo the will of the courts by forcing people to reveal whether theyve been charged with a crime, even though they completed a diversion program that was deemed by the courts as an option for removing the conviction from their record. As Americans, we value hard work and strong qualifications, and believe that those qualities should allow you to advance professionally. The proposed rule conflicts with those values and will unnecessarily block the pathway to success for too many Americans, their families, and their communities. Sincerely, Heather Malin |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2516 | Please stop undermining President Trump and abandon these terrible regulations. We have come far from the blunders of the past, and we the tax paying people would like to see this one play out. Please agree with the conservative justice reform. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2479 | we need conservative reforms not a liberal agenda please get it done! thanks Rudy | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2378 | Do your job, serve America, it's founding Father's who served at the pleasure of Judeo Christian Values and Morals, righteousness! Stop undermining President Trump's Conservative Justice Reforms! Get on board or get off the bus and wait your turn! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2440 | PLEASE support our President Trump with all his initiates. He puts the USA 100% | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2525 | Please stop undermining President Trump's conservative justice reforms. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2474 | I strongly support Trumps conservative agenda!! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2313 | JUST (DO) YOUR (JOB)!!!!! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0046 | Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to Optional Form 306 (OF306). One of the changes to OF306 would require job applicants for federal jobs and federal contract employment to disclose their past completion of a diversion program. This change is counter to criminal justice research showing that people should not face extensive employment barriers because of past mistakes and is counter to the intent of diversion programs which allow people accused of minor mistakes to avoid a criminal record and the 45,000 collateral consequences that are associated with a record. First, people who have made mistakes in their past - including those who may have been convicted of a crime - deserve second chances to be successful. Meaningful employment is a key milestone, which helps people move forward in their lives. The federal government should be a model employer for second chances, and this rule would instead set a horrible precedent for private employers. Second, people who have completed a diversion program have not been convicted of a crime. In the interest of justice, courts offer diversion programs so that people are not saddled with the lifelong burden of a criminal record. This rule change would essentially undo the will of the courts by forcing people to reveal whether they've completed a diversion program. As Americans, we value hard work and strong qualifications, and believe that those qualities should allow you to advance professionally. The proposed rule conflicts with those values and will unnecessarily block the pathway to success for too many Americans, their families, and their communities. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2316 | Please write your comment here.Stop this madness. Get with the people that voted for President Trump. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2420 | Stop the Democrats in Washington that are trying to take this country down! Let President Trump do his job!! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2448 | need to move on this why Demi are Losing people from their party | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2546 | Stop undermining President Trumps conservative justice reforms, Support his agenda for America, so he can do what we elected him to do. America wants reform. Unelected officials should not be able to undo the elected Presidents agenda. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2306 | This is the man elected to be our president and should able to represent us and not undermined by you or anyone else.. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2691 | Stop wasting our countries time, let get on board to make conservative justice reform. It only makes sense at least to people who are not political motives. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2500 | I live in California where the elite don't care about what normal citizens want and would rather help illegal aliens commit crimes and watch its own citizens struggle so I know this is falling on deaf ears. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2733 | Stop your partisan politics and realize that Trump was elected President and learn to live with it. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2224 | The fact is People with disabilities some times cant make good choices without some help and guidance This proposed rule change would require people who have successfully completed diversion programs to disclose that information when applying for a job in federal government I think many people with disabilities will be harmed if they have to disclose information. the point of completing a diversion program is to avoid a criminal conviction and the challenges that come with it. If this rule is implemented, individuals who were charged with petty offenses but were given a second chance by a judge to avoid a criminal conviction will have to endure the same stigma as others with criminal records, and will be less likely to be offered jobs, even when they are well-qualified. Please dont support this rule change |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2388 | I am looking forward to your support for the president's conservative justice reforms. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2515 | Please support the President. | 1 | ||||
| Voice of the Experienced (VOTE)--Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0122 | April 15, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Comments to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod: We are writing in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. Our organization, Voice of the Experienced (VOTE) is dedicated to restoring the full human and civil rights of formerly incarcerated people and their loves ones. Given our experience and expertise directly impacted leaders, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they undermine the ability of people with an arrest or conviction record to compete fairly for employment while also discriminating against people of color, transgender people, people with a history of substance use and/or mental health disorders, and other communities who should be affirmatively valued and respected in the hiring process. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. As an organization that was founded and is currently run by formerly incarcerated leaders, we know firsthand the detrimental impact a conviction history has on one’s ability to gain employment, as well as housing, healthcare and other basic needs. We also know that when people who have made genuine mistakes are given a second chance to succeed, more often than not they do. We see this every day in our work, when countless people who have been adversely affected by the criminal justice system are pro-social making pro-social choices and contributing to their various communities in positive ways. The proposed changes undermine bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the federal First Step Act, that seek to promote and reward rehabilitation and limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on the individual, their families and communities. OPM’s proposed policy would also have a particularly harmful and disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in such diversion programs. These proposed changes are completely at odds with the President Trump’s recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. In addition, we object to the proposed requirement to report aliases on OF306 (Question 5) because it can cause severe unintended consequences to members of the transgender community and domestic violence survivors. Many transgender people change their name to better align with their gender, and some domestic violence survivors do so in order to protect their identities from their abusers. However, in many states, the process associated with a legal name change can be time consuming, cumbersome and costly, often exceeding $400 in court fees and other expenses. By creating these and other new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining the employment prospects of people with records and others who are directly impacted by the reforms, but it is also discouraging well qualified workers from both seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Norris Henderson Founder and Executive Director Voice of the Experienced (VOTE) www.vote-nola.org10--UNABLE TO OPEN ATTACHMENT |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2585 | I respectfully request you support our president. Please protect all of President Trumps progress making America great. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2697; 2708 | Stop the deep state from undermining President Trump conservative justice reforms | 67 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2671 | Stop undermining President Trump's reforms and get on with doing the right thing for the United States. You need to start working on co-operating with each other. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2646 | Not everyone placed in pre-trial diversion is guilty. Just like not everyone convicted of a crime is guilty. There are already too many people wrongfully convicted of crimes they never committed (see the websites of the National Registry of Exonerations - http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx and the Innocence Project - https://www.innocenceproject.org). Now we're going to add to the rolls of people branded guilty of crimes, passed over for jobs and other opportunities although they were never convicted of crimes. What's worse is that people who have completed pre-trial diversion (PTI) have no chance of ever being exonerated. You were told you could move on with your life, and now that may change. Where there was once hope, that may now be taken away. This is a massive betrayal. Again, not everyone is guilty for which they were charged. Finally, PTI is not a conviction. It is an opportunity to have charges dropped, records expunged and for people to move on with their lives. This rule change will treat people who have not been convicted of a crime like a convicted person. This attempt at expediting hiring in the federal government may make hiring more efficient, but partly because you will have fewer candidates willing to be rejected at the end of the decision process. Is punishing people for crimes they may not have committed a price they should bear to make the hiring process for their government - one to which they pay taxes - more efficient? |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2466 | All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2312 | Please write your comment here Keep the laws of our funding fathers put in the Constitution. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2434 | I urge you to discontinue any regulation that would undermine President Trump's conservative justice reforms. These reforms are needed so that former law-breakers can have a second chance in life.Please write your comment here Keep the laws of our funding fathers put in the Constitution. |
1 | ||||
| Agency--Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1951 | The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer & Questioning Youth 250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619 (617) 285-2624 – www.mass.gov/cgly April 19, 2019 To Whom It May Concern: The Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth is writing in opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed revision to Question 9 in the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306 by asking applicants to federal and federal contract employment if they have “been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed.” Diversionary programs are an important tool to uphold public safety in our communities. These programs help individuals avoid a criminal record and conviction through treatment or rehabilitative alternatives. Typical diversion programs target individuals accused of low-level offenses who do not present a public safety risk. The intention of diversionary programs is, as the name suggests, to divert individuals from the criminal justice system and provide corrective measures. Requiring individuals to disclose their participation in these programs would run counter to their intention. We oppose limiting the employment opportunities of individuals who successfully complete diversionary programs and have no conviction on their record to be treated similarly to others who have been convicted of a crime and those sentenced to imprisonment or probation or parole. The proposed question will undermine an important tool in our juvenile and criminal justice systems where individuals are engaged in community service, or rehabilitative programming, if needed. These programs are typically run by law enforcement or the courts who see these programs as holding accountable individuals who do not represent a public safety risk. Requiring individuals to disclose their participation in a diversionary program may also disproportionately impact lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth and young adults. For a variety of reasons—including higher rates of homelessness and foster care involvement—LGBTQ youth are twice as likely to enter the juvenile justice system as their non-LGBTQ peers.1 Nationally, 73% of LGBTQ youth report having personal interactions with law enforcement in the previous five years.2 Further research shows that 50% of LGBTQ youth are at risk of entering the juvenile justice system due to the risk factors that they face for simply being LGBTQ.3 These disparities transfer to adulthood, with 58% of respondents in a 2015 survey reporting that their first experience in a justice facility had been before age 18.4 In total, 1 Vallas, R., & Dietrich, S. (2014). One Strike and You’re Out: How We Can Eliminate Barriers 2 Ibid. 3 Wilson, B. D. M., et al. (2017). “Disproportionality and Disparities among Sexual Minority Youth in Custody,” Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 46(7): 1547–1561. 4 Lyndon, J., Carington, K., Low, H., Miller, R., & Yazdy, M. (2015). Coming out of Concrete Closets: A Report on Black & Pink’s National LGBTQ Prisoner Survey. Black and Pink. Retrieved from LGB individuals are three times more likely to be incarcerated than the general population.5 The Commission has long supported diversionary programs to stem such disparate system involvement among LGBTQ youth, and the proposed OPM rule would undo the progress that has been made. Therefore, because of the harm this proposed rule poses to all youth and the disproportionate harm it could pose to LGBTQ youth, the Commission opposes amending Question 9 in the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306 by asking applicants to federal and federal contract employment if they have participated in a diversionary program. We would be happy to provide further information on this matter and can be contacted at the phone number and email address indicated below. Respectfully, Corey Prachniak-Rincón Director, MA Commission on LGBTQ Youth Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs Phone: (617) 285-2624 Email: [email protected] Web: http://mass.gov/cgly Jordan Meehan Policy Coordinator, MA Commission on LGBTQ Youth Pronouns: He/Him/His Phone: (781) 338-6318 Email: [email protected] Web: http://mass.gov/cgly |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2699 | PLEASE STOP YOUR POLITICAL ACTIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF OUR GREAT NATION WE SHOULD BE UNITING TO PRAY TO GOD FOR OUR GREAT NATION AND FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR DIVINE DIRECTIONPlease write your comment here. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1730 | Please allow people to freely choose | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2729 | We need to find a better way to help people who are drug offenders instead of locking them up and wasting taxpayers money | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2564 | It's time to stop beating this ppor dead horse. Your Clinton machine lost the election. Your faithful high leaders in FBI, Doj and others failed to prove collusion as it never happened, and now you have another scape goat, so you think in more garbage that even your hero, Meuller couldn't prove. Why don't you give it a break and instead do your job, supporting the Constitution, doing good deeds for U. S. citizens. Enough is enough. | 1 | ||||
| FreedomWorks Foundation--Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2287 | Comments of the Regulatory Action Center Re: The Submission for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306 Docket ID: OPM-2019-0002-00001 April 23, 2019 The Regulatory Action Center at FreedomWorks Foundation is dedicated to educating Americans about the impact of government regulation on economic prosperity and individual liberty. FreedomWorks Foundation is committed to lowering the barrier between millions of FreedomWorks citizen activists and the rule-making process of government bureaus to which they are entitled to contribute. On behalf of over 5.7 million activists nationwide, FreedomWorks Foundation appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments to the Office of Personnel Management in opposition to the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form 306,” as presented in 84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019. While the White House continues its efforts to reform the federal criminal justice system in a bipartisan fashion, there is widespread agreement that the “next step” in this process on the heels of the enactment of the First Step Act is mitigating the disproportionate effects of contact with the criminal justice system. One such mechanism for this that is already in place is the use of diversionary programs. These programs allow individuals who have been charged with a crime -- and often not convicted -- to receive rehabilitory programming without incurring the stigma associated with a criminal record that is so often debilitating in finding employment, pursuing education, and securing housing. As President Trump declared at the 2019 Prison Reform Summit and First Step Act Celebration on April 1 that April is officially “Second Chance Month,” he also acknowledged that “[w]hen we say ‘Hire American,’ we mean all Americans, including former inmates who have paid their debt to society...We will achieve our goal by encouraging employers to adopt Second Chance hiring practices.” In this context, President Trump was referring to easing barriers and giving second chances those who have actually been convicted and incarcerated, for whom he recognizes that it is often impossible currently to shed the stigma of a criminal record. FreedomWorks Foundations’ chief concern with the proposed changes to OF 306 is the proposed required disclosure of whether an individual applying to a job in the federal or contracting space has “[b]een subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed.” As stated, such completion of these conditions, more commonly known as diversionary programs, does not require a criminal conviction, let alone incarcerated. However, requiring disclosure of such participation stigmatizes those who have participated in diversionary programs, effectively to the level of having been convicted for the purposes of the potential resulting discrimination. 1 As is widely known, securing or failing to secure stable employment following incarceration is one of the key indicators of whether or not an individual will commit another crime. President Trump is correct to work to ensure that governmental barriers are as low as reasonably possible for those with a criminal record to make their case for and gain employment. In fact, the very second chance hiring practices that he discussed at the outset of this month have garnered broad bipartisan support in Congress for application to certain federal positions and contracted positions. The notion of adding a “box” for those who were, under the law and as even the language of proposed change suggests, never convicted of a crime as a result of dropped charges is not in keeping with the precedent that President Trump and Congress set with the First Step Act and sets the wrong example for states, localities, and private sector employers who are looking to follow the federal government’s lead on criminal justice reform. Once again, diversionary programs’ very purpose is to avoid the stigmatization that comes with a criminal record for those who have been charged with an offense but, in the eyes of the court, do not require incarceration or even conviction to continue on as law-abiding citizens. However, requiring such individuals to disclose their participation in a diversionary program simply stated undermines the very purpose of the program. Moreover, it undermines the honest and monumentally important work that the White House at large, together with allies on both sides of the aisle inside and outside of Congress, is doing to make meaningful change in the criminal justice space. Various agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management, should be working hand in hand with those same stakeholders when considering any changes to hiring practices that brush up against the criminal justice system to ensure that interests are not at odds. FreedomWorks Foundation appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the Office of Personnel Management’s proposed changes to OF 306. The proposal is inconsistent with significant efforts for a second step in justice reform as led by the White House and Congress and potentially threatens public safety by stigmatizing and encouraging discrimination against those who have participated in diversionary programs. Therefore, we encourage the Office of Personnel Management to rescind the proposed change in 84 Fed. Reg. 5733 and instead work intentionally hand-in-hand with criminal justice reform advocates to further, not weaken, the meaningful strides made recently in this space. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Anderson Federal Affairs Manager FreedomWorks Foundation 111 K Street NE, Suite 600 Washington, DC, 20002 Jason Pye Vice President of Legislative Affairs FreedomWorks Foundation 111 K Street NE, Suite 600 Washington, DC, 20002 |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1604 | Testing this message | 1 | ||||
| Philadelphia Lawyers for Equity-Agency | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0115 | I write in opposition to amending question 9 in the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306 by asking applicants to federal and federal contract employment if they have been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed. In Pennsylvania, applicable law provides that a judge may divert an adult defendant from trial by admitting that defendant into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) Program before any finding of guilt is made, setting conditions for behavior which, if satisfied, will result in dismissal of all pending charges. As specified by the legislature, the primary purpose of ARD is the rehabilitation of the offender. These rules contemplate that ordinarily the defendants eligible for the ARD program are first offenders who lend themselves to treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment and that the crime charged is relatively minor and does not involve a serious breach of the public trust. The program is intended to encourage offenders to make a fresh start after participation in a rehabilitative program and offers them the possibility of a clean record if they successfully complete the program. Committee Introduction to Chapter 3, Pennsylvania Code. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has made it clear that that a defendants arrest record must be completely and entirely erased (expunged) upon successful completion of an ARD program unless the state presents compelling reasons why the arrest record should be retained, Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 434 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 1981). Therefore, in Pennsylvania, a judge has already determined that the defendant poses no risk to society beyond that of anyone else. The only exception to full expungement following satisfactory completion of ARD relates to charges brought under the Vehicle Code for driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, but even there the record is required to be expunged after ten years without another similar charge. Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, 1534(b-d). In Pennsylvania, this is a right of constitutional dimension. Unproven charges are nothing but hearsay, pure and simple. All three branches of our state government concur that diversion programs, successfully completed, should result in there being NO criminal record. Foundations have confirmed that criminal records are a major factor in creating inter-generational poverty. Our workforce development programs have confirmed that it is undeniable that criminal records are a major factor in keeping people in poverty. At a time in our nation when all sectors of society are coming to realize that there are major, long-term problems associated with police and prosecutorial overcharging, the proposed amendment would be a major step backward. Our society should be doing everything it can to help people get out of poverty and into jobs at their highest and best abilities, and allow them to compete for all jobs for which they are qualified. We oppose limiting the employment opportunities of individuals who successfully complete diversionary programs and have no conviction on their record. For these reasons, the change in OF 306 that is being considered would be contrary not just to the rights of citizens under Pennsylvania law, but to the greater interests of our society as a whole. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2558 | Please write your comment here.President Trump was elected to make drastic changes that have been needed for decades by me and millions like myself. He needs unfettered ability to change the ultra liberal justice system to a more non biased system. Please allow this to become a reality for America. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedRegs; 3-21-19; #0002 | The proposed changes defeat the purpose of diversion and drug court programs. Judges and prosecutors understand the nature and circumstances of a crime and the history of the defendant, and choose diversionary programs because they decide that a particular defendant is not a risk and should have a fair shot at employment, without the obstacle of a criminal record. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2250 | The whole purpose of the second chance act was to prevent this type of additional punishment and allow people with a record or who made a mistake to get housing, employment and not have to be branded for life. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2717 | I am writing to ask officials to stop ignoring the Presidents Justice Reforms. The people should be protected from vicious criminals by getting them off the streets. Mr. Trumps plan will actually do something about this long, unattended problem. Thank you. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2481 | STOP THE DEMOCRATS FROM UNDERMINING TRUMPS CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE REFORM | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2327 | STOP UNDERMINING CONSERVATIVES AND CONSERVATIVE IDEAS !!!!! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE FOR YOU !!! | 1 | ||||
| TASC--Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2225 | April 22, 2019 RE: Comments submitted to the Office of Personnel Management on “Submission for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306.” [Document citation: 84 FR 5733; Document Number 2019-03056] To Whom It May Concern: We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed changes to Optional Form 306 (OF306) proposed by the Office of Personnel Management in the Federal Register on February 22, 2019. Our comments focus on a proposed change to OF306’s Question 9, which would require applicants for federal jobs and federal contract employment to disclose their past completion of a criminal justice diversion program: Question 9 currently reads, ‘‘During the last 7 years, have you been convicted, been imprisoned, been on probation, or been on parole? (Includes felonies, firearms or explosives violations, misdemeanors, and all other offenses.) If ‘YES,’ use item 16 to provide the date, an explanation of the violation, place of occurrence, and the name and address of the police department or court involved.’’ Question 9 is amended to read, ‘‘During the last 7 years, have you: Been convicted of any crime (Include misdemeanors, felonies, firearms or explosives violations, domestic violence, alcohol, drugs, and all other crimes or offenses); Been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed; Served time in jail or prison as a result of being convicted of a crime; or Been on probation or parole? If ‘‘YES,’’ use item 16 to provide the date, explanation of the violation/charge, place of occurrence, and the name and address of the police and court involved.’’ We strongly oppose this proposed change because it would undermine a central goal of diversionary programs—the prevention of harmful and long-lasting collateral consequences, including barriers to gainful employment, that result from criminal conviction records and stand in the way of successful rehabilitation and community participation. By design, criminal justice diversion programs afford individuals who are deemed eligible by prosecuting attorneys and/or courts the opportunity to demonstrate accountability in a manner that prevents a conviction and its collateral consequences, and often include rehabilitative components to address behavioral health problems, education/job training needs, and other issues underlying offending behavior. These programs reflect a recognition by experienced law enforcement and judicial professionals that, for some, convictions deter rehabilitation and run counter to the public’s interest. This rule change would undercut the will of prosecuting attorneys and courts operating diversion programs by compelling applicants to disclose their participation in them. It will effectively block the path to rehabilitation and employment for individuals, and harm not 2 only them but also their families and communities. Therefore, we urge your office to discontinue pursuit of this change. Thank you for the opportunity to share comments on this matter. Please feel free to contact me for further information or if I can be of assistance in any way. Sincerely, Pamela F. Rodriguez President & CEO (312) 573-8372 [email protected] |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2438 | When President Trump signed criminal justice reform into law, it was a huge victory in the fight to fix our justice system. Thanks to him and strong conservatives like you, countless Americans that would be trapped in a broken justice system for small mistakes have a chance to work in our booming economy and help Make America Great Again. But right now, Deep State and liberal bureaucrats at the Office of Personnel Management are trying to sneak through a new regulation that would totally undermine the President and his justice reform! Under this ridiculous rule, anyone applying for nearly any job that deals with the federal government would have to disclose if they participated in a "diversionary program." These programs help millions of Americans turn their lives around after they have made a mistake, turning them into productive members of their communities rather than forcing them through a flawed prison system that wastes millions of your tax dollars and often turns people into more dangerous criminals. This rule would essentially blacklist millions of Americans from millions of potential jobs for doing the right thing and putting in the hard work of turning their life around, even if they were never convicted of a crime. That makes it more likely they will turn to crime and make your community less safe. All while President Trump is fighting to get them a second chance to lead a decent life and be a good American. There is a time for compromises, and this is not one of those times. Do not let President Trump's opposition destroy his justice reforms! The OPM needs to abandon this rule! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2526 | This is the kind of program that allows people to become productive citizens. These citizens should then be allowed to vote. The democrats would rather have all incarcerated people be allowed to vote while still in prison. No common sense allowed in Washington D.C. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2365 | Last year President Trump made history by passing a landmark conservative justice reform bill. Crime rates are declining and law and order is finally being restored, all thanks to President Trump's leadership. But instead of helping the president clean up our streets, DC bureaucrats are doing everything possible to erase all the great progress he's made! It's time to stop undermining President Trump and abandon insane bureaucratic regulation. Thank you for your time. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen--Retired | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0643 | I have served as a federal prosecutor, an associate director of the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and as chief counsel of the Office of Financial Stability for the US Department of the Treasury. In all, I have had about 15 years experience in the federal government. I was a senior supervisor for about eight years and had responsibility for hiring employees into sensitive positions. Based on my experience, I submit the following comments on the proposal: 1. The information requested would not be of very little benefit to hiring decisions. Pretrial diversion is commonly used by courts and by prosecutors to screen out minor cases involving first offenders. It seeks to place such persons on informal probation for a period of time. If the prospective defendant completes the requirements and stay out of trouble, then the charges are dismissed and in some jurisdictions the record of the arrest and court proceedings will be sealed if the prospective defendant remains crime-free for additional years. Pre trial probation relieves prosecutors of the need to try cases whose proof is marginal involving defendants who will not under any circumstances go to prison or need formal supervision. Typical pre-trial diversion cases are petty larceny, i.e., shoplifting, of small items, possession of small quantities of marijuana, and the like. The typical defendant is a young person, usually under 21, who has made a foolish decision. Pre-trial diversion is intended to give a person who has led an otherwise blameworthy life a second chance. One can only conceive of practical utility for this information when the applicant is seeking a position that requires him or her to handle highly classified information whose revelation would compromise national security and who could be subject of blackmail by a hostile foreign power. Thus, if this provision is to be added, it should be carefully limited to circumstances which require a security clearance. The question will also have harmful consequences. It will make pre-trial diversion of less utility to a prospective defendant, the courts and prosecutors and therefore increases the incentive to take marginal cases to trial. The net result will be that more scarce judicial and prosecutorial resources will be spent on minor offenses, increasing the burden on overcrowded courts. 2. The requirement will add a burden on applicants. Applicants and investigators will spend time on old cases that have been dismissed and whose records may be sealed. Applicants and hiring officials will need to spend substantial time researching and evaluating petty matters. Often, the facts will be contested creating the risk of mini-trials before hiring officials 3. As noted above, the information solicited is not valuable to the vast majority of hiring decisions. In a case involving pre trial diversion, a court and a prosecutor have already concluded that a matter is so petty that it does not warrant prosecution even if it could be proven. What then is the value and significance of this information? 4. This will impose a significant burden on applicants who will be required to explain the circumstances that led to an arrest and the reasons why they chose to accept pre-trial diversion. It will also deter qualified applicants from seeking government related employment and reduce the pool of qualified personnel. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2416 | GROW UP YOU BUNCH OF CRY BABIES | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2540 | please support the President and his efforts. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1724 | Please alow this theraphy to continue |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2688 | Stop trying to destroy America by trying to undermine President Trump's conservative policies. His policies are working. You have no successful ideas or plans STOP! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2318 | we Have the existing liberal justice system in play obstructing the current administrations reforms. Those judges were appointed with our help when there were proper democratic administrations. That has been tradition in this countryand a necessary one: We, the people have justly and rightfully elected Donald Trump president. He is acting on our behalf. You are obstructing the will of the people by interfering in his Court appointees. I can see no way that you are acting with integrity! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-21-19; #0004 | Broadening the scope of the questions regarding criminal background to include participation in a pretrial diversion or similar type program is wrong and punitive. These programs offer a dismissal of charges with the intent of providing a "clean slate" for people who successfully complete them. Pretrial diversion programs have rigorous requirements, and people who successfully complete them ought not to be punished twice for the same charges. These expanded questions will have the effect of deterring people from enrolling in pretrial diversion programs out of fear that his/her participation will negatively impact their job opportunities in the future. Gainful employment is an essential component to living a law abiding life. Many states have enacted "ban the box" legislation to make gainful employment more accessible to persons with a criminal record. This proposed change is a step backwards. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2424 | All this immature opposing anything that Trump tries to accomplish is not impressing anyone, except maybe the Dems. It's wasting the taxpayers time and money. I think maybe they should have their paychecks docked when agreements cannot be reached in efforts to make the country a better, safer place for it's citizens. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2339 | We need to balance the justice system so all dudes are heard fairly. Please allow President Trump s conservative Justice reforms. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2449 | I strongly oppose the unelected to try to run this country. Our rules and regulations should come from those that represent us and are elected. The rest of you need to stay in the wood work where you belong (bugs). Leave our justice system alone, we are finally getting it right. Go check out Joe Biden. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2260 | Do not implement a proposed rule change to the Declaration for Federal Employment that would require people who have successfully completed diversion programs to disclose that information when applying for a job in federal government. The problem is: the whole point of completing a diversion program is to avoid a criminal conviction and the challenges that come with it. If this rule is implemented, individuals who were charged with petty offenses but were given a second chance by a judge to avoid a criminal conviction will have to endure the same stigma as others with criminal records, and will be less likely to be offered jobs, even when they are well-qualified. This isn't what a bipartisan coalition of 445 Senators and House Members who voted for the historic FIRST STEP Act would want. This isn't what governors across the nation, who are reforming their states' criminal justice systems, including conservative governors in Arizona, Kentucky and Oklahoma who have implemented "ban the box" policies for their administrations would want. And this isnt what President Trump would want, right after he invited dozens of formerly incarcerated people to the White House and pledged his support for second chances. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen--Resident Scholar, Economic Policy Studies American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research |
FedReg, 4-23-19; #2226 | Dear Madam or Sir: I write in response to the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) February 22, 2019 request for comments on its proposed revision of Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306. The proposed revision would, among other changes, expand reporting requirements related to applicants criminal record. Specifically, it would ask applicants to list charges for which they have been placed into a pretrial intervention or other diversionary program. This revision is a change for the worse for three reasons. First, it works to undermine the purpose of these programs, which is, in part, to keep defendants from undergoing further prosecution and suffering the consequences thereof, including incarceration and long-lasting damage to employment prospects. Second, it expands the class of workers whose labor market prospects are limited by their criminal record. Recent economics research has shown the remarkable success of Ban the Box type measures, which operate to limit reporting requirements related to applicants criminal records, in increasing employment and reducing recidivism among workers with such records (Shoag and Veuger, 2019; Yang, 2017). Shoag and Veuger, in particular, show that such policies have increased employment in the highest-crime neighborhoods by as much as 4%. Finally, this change is out of step with developments in both the private sector and the state and local public sector. Over the past decade or so, more than 30 states, over 150 localities, and major corporations including Walmart, Target, and Koch Industries have implemented policies that restrict inquiries regarding criminal records in the early stage of application procedures (Shoag and Veuger, 2019). The federal government should not diverge from these norms and practices adopted by the rest of society without a more substantive rationale than that offered in the notice of proposed revision, which is merely that it closes a gap. Sincerely, Stan Veuger Resident Scholar, Economic Policy Studies American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research References Shoag, Daniel W., and Stan A. Veuger (2019) Ban the Box Measures Help High Crime Neighborhoods, AEI Economics Working Paper 2016-08. (Attached) Yang, Crystal S. (2017) Local Labor Markets and Criminal Recidivism, Journal of Public Economics, 147: 16-29. (PDF version attached) I write in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) February 22, 2019 request for comments on its proposed revision of Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306. The proposed revision would, among other changes, expand reporting requirements related to applicants’ criminal record. Specifically, it would ask applicants to list charges for which they have been placed into a pretrial intervention or other diversionary program. This revision is a change for the worse for three reasons. First, it works to undermine the purpose of these programs, which is, in part, to keep defendants from undergoing further prosecution and suffering the consequences thereof, including incarceration and long-lasting damage to employment prospects. Second, it expands the class of workers whose labor market prospects are limited by their criminal record. Recent economics research has shown the remarkable success of “Ban the Box” type measures, which operate to limit reporting requirements related to applicants’ criminal records, in increasing employment and reducing recidivism among workers with such records (Shoag and Veuger, 2019; Yang, 2017). Shoag and Veuger, in particular, show that such policies have increased employment in the highest-crime neighborhoods by as much as 4%. Finally, this change is out of step with developments in both the private sector and the state and local public sector. Over the past decade or so, more than 30 states, over 150 localities, and major corporations including Walmart, Target, and Koch Industries have implemented policies that restrict inquiries regarding criminal records in the early stage of application procedures (Shoag and Veuger, 2019). The federal government should not diverge from these norms and practices adopted by the rest of society without a more substantive rationale than that offered in the notice of proposed revision, which is merely that it “closes a gap.” References Shoag, Daniel W., and Stan A. Veuger (2019) “’Ban the Box’ Measures Help High Crime Neighborhoods,” AEI Economics Working Paper 2016-08. Yang, Crystal S. (2017) “Local Labor Markets and Criminal Recidivism,” Journal of Public Economics, 147: 16-29. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-21-19; #0025 | The proposed changes directly contradict the federal government's recently stated position (via passage of the First Step Act, the administration's support of diversion programs for addicted offenders, etc.) to improve reentry success and facilitate employment and second chances for citizens who have paid their debts to society in various forms. They also contradict the growing bipartisan movements in states and Congress to ban the box and prevent employers from discriminating against people with a criminal record during the hiring process. Considering the federal government, especially OPM, is continually striving to reduce unnecessary paperwork and maximize efficiency wherever possible, this is also contradictory to its stated goals. Finally, the entire point of programs that serve as alternatives to incarceration is to avoid the criminal record in the first place. A major benefit of completing such programs is ensuring successful participants do not have to disclose their criminal record because it has been dismissed, expunged, or sealed. By implementing these new policies, the administration is removing incentives from participants, many of whom may opt to serve jail or prison time instead, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and inevitably perpetuating the cycle of crime, recidivism, addiction, mental health disorders, and incarceration suffered by so many in our country. Shame on you. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2547 | Please Do all you can to help and support President Trump! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2304 | Please, I implore you not to undermine President Trump's Conservative Justice Reforms! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1982 | I am opposed to questioning applicants for federal jobs about any participation in diversion programs. Diversion programs have been used by the Maryland courts effectively. The U.S. government policy should encourage criminal courts to resolve less serious charges without trial when this is acceptable to all parties. Such a policy will avoid our recent trend towards over-criminalization and reduce criminal justice-related costs to taxpayers. | 1 | ||||
| Professional Organization-Coalition for Juvenile Justice | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2282 | April 23, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Submitted via Regulations.gov Re: Comments to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod, On behalf of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) I am writing in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. CJJ is a nationwide coalition of State Advisory Groups, organizations, individuals, youth, and allies dedicated to preventing children and youth from becoming involved in the courts and upholding the highest standards of care when youth are charged with wrongdoing and enter the justice system. CJJ envisions a nation where fewer children are at risk of delinquency; and if they are at risk or involved with the justice system, they and their families receive every possible opportunity to live safe, healthy, and fulfilling lives. This opportunity includes the ability to obtain gainful employment after a youth’s involvement with the justice system is over. One of the many negative consequences of prosecuting youth as adults is that youth sentenced as adults carry their criminal record for their entire life, diminishing chances to find jobs, access decent housing, obtain students loans, and go to college, join the military, or even vote. For this reason, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they undermine the ability of young people with an arrest or conviction record to compete fairly for employment. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.”1 Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant 1 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. 1319 F Street | Suite 402 | Washington, DC 20004 | 202-467-0864 | [email protected] information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. While the form instructs that answers to Question 9 should omit any violations of the law that were committed before a person's sixteenth birthday, any violation of the law committed before a person's eighteenth birthday if decided in juvenile court or under a youth offender law, or any conviction set aside under the Federal Youth Corrections Act or similar state law, this would still exclude a number of young people. For example, there are a number of states where youth under eighteen are automatically deemed to be adults in the eyes of law.2 Further, every state in the country has some mechanism that allows youth to be charged as adults.3 These laws have a disproportionate impact on minority youth. In 2014, Black youth were 14% of the youth population nationally, but 52.5% of the youth transferred to adult court by juvenile court judges, the highest percentage of Black youth transferred in nearly thirty years of data collection.4 These proposed changes would undermine bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the federal First Step Act, that seek to promote and reward rehabilitation and limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on the individual, their families and communities. OPM’s proposed policy would also have a particularly harmful and disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in such diversion programs. These proposed changes are completely at odds with the President Trump’s recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. The new changes also cut against some provisions of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which was reauthorized in 2018 with broad bi-partisan support. Title V of the JJDPA provides grant funding for local delinquency prevention programs. Eligible programs provide services such as job training skills5 and job placement and retention skills.6 Limiting the employment opportunities of youth receiving these services limits the government’s return on its investment in these programs. By creating these new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining the employment prospects of people with records and others who are directly impacted by the reforms, but it is also discouraging well 2 John Kelly, In Another Big Year for “Raise the Age” Laws, One State Now Considers All Teens as Juveniles, THE CHRONICLE OF SOCIAL CHANGE (June 25, 2018), https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/youth-services-insider/juvenile-justice-raise-the-age-vermont-missouri-state-legislation (noting Georgia, Texas, Michigan, and Wisconsin set the age of criminal responsibility below 18). 3 JEREE THOMAS, ESQ, AND MEL WILSON, THE COLOR OF YOUTH TRANSFERRED TO THE ADULT SYSTEM: POLICY & PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS 1 (2017), available at http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Social_Justice_Brief_Youth_Transfers.Revised_copy_09-18-2018.pdf. 4 Child Population by Race in the United States, KIDS COUNT DATA CENTER, THE ANNIE E. CASEY FOUND., https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-race#detailed/1/any/false/870,573,869/68,69,67,12,70,66,71,72/424 (last visited Apr. 12, 2019); M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985-2014, https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/ (last visited Apr. 12, 2019). 5 34 U.S.C. 11311(3)(G). 6 34 U.S.C. 11311(3)(J)(xi). 1319 F Street | Suite 402 | Washington, DC 20004 | 202-467-0864 | [email protected] qualified workers from both seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Naomi Smoot Executive Director |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2502 | Pres. Trump we, your base of voters, will never desert you. We believe in what you are doing, no matter what lies we hear from the idiot liberal left, so just keep on. You will come out the winner!!! r comment here. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2734 | What ever happened to serving the people of the United States? Stop seeking to undermine justice reforms by President Trump! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2024 | The problem I have with the proposed regulation is not only the effect it may have on the lives of those who are required to submit to it. And keep in mind, there are criminal or near-criminal histories in almost every family in America. No. The greater problem I see is that this regulation contributes to a sense of collective paranoia and an irrational fear of our fellow citizens. We are already overly-reactive through neighborhood watches and computer networks, in my opinion. It distresses me that there's shaming taking place on those networks, an effort to become the "eyes and ears" of the police state. Take care, America. We are the land of the free and the brave, not the suppressed and the meak. And finally, those who would enact such regulations and supervise its implementation. Think of the harm to them. Do not give them the tools of their own abasement. Sincerely, bruce |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2613 | Please write your comment here. Democrats you need to work with our president ! I don't understand why the left isn't helping secure America ! Please stop fussing and fighting and let's move forward !! |
1 | ||||
| Safer Foundation-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2373 | April 23, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Comments to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod: We are writing in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. Safer Foundation is one of the nation’s largest non-profit social impact organizations focusing on human capital development. Safer Foundation runs reentry and workforce development programs in both Illinois and Iowa and is a national leader in addressing the challenges and barriers to successful reentry and employment for individuals with criminal records. Safer Foundation provides organizations across the country training and technical assistance on employment issues related to people with arrest or conviction records and helps its clients secure and maintain employment – a key component of successful, long-term reentry. Through its full spectrum of services, Safer Foundation helps 5,000 individuals with arrest and conviction records per year gain employment, resulting in successful reentry, lower recidivism, and increased resources for those individuals, their families, and communities. Given our experience and expertise, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they discourage and undermine the ability of people with an arrest, diversion program, or conviction record to compete fairly for employment while also discriminating against people of color, transgender people, people with a history of substance use and/or mental health disorders, and other communities who should be affirmatively valued and respected in the hiring process. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from the justice system and incarceration into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many individuals who have been arrested for the first time, are able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. At Safer Foundation we believe there is dignity in work, and that individuals who have made mistakes in the past should have the opportunity to be self-sufficient and contribute to their families and communities through gainful, living wage employment. Clients come to Safer Foundation because they want and need to work. Safer Foundation helps clients discover career paths that provide personal fulfillment while allowing them to earn a living. Safer Foundation offers a full spectrum of workforce development and reentry services that train individuals, address their obstacles and needs, and help them obtain sustained employment. This holistic approach has rendered outstanding results for participants and employers. One of Safer Foundation’s programs is the Advancing Careers and Employment (ACE) Program, which provides workforce development, education, trauma-informed case management, and occupational training to adults who are 25 and older. Enrollment in ACE often is integrated into diversion programs, including treatment plans from drug courts and other problem-solving courts. Working closely with the justice system and community-based stakeholders, including probation officers, parole boards, drug court judges, and the Illinois and Iowa Departments of Corrections, Safer Foundation identifies program participants and then provides services to stabilize clients before beginning education or training for employment. Employment training and related support services can last up to 12 months. After completing their educational and training goals and earning an industry credential, participants are placed in employment within their preferred career pathway. Safer Foundation then provides services for an additional nine months to promote employment retention and self-sufficiency. Safer Foundation’s ACE program was built in collaboration with individuals who have gone through diversion programs as well as with individuals who work in the justice system. ACE and programs like it are important community-based tools that improve public safety, reduce costs, and benefit the economy by engaging more individuals in the workforce. Diversion programs that provide workforce development also can be critical to engaging individuals with substance use disorder and supporting their recovery. OPM’s proposed policy would be especially harmful to and have a disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in diversion programs, including diversion programs through drug courts and other specialty courts. The proposed changes also are completely at odds with the President Trump’s recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. As the U.S. economy continues to rebound from the last recession, the labor market is tightening, and the skills gap is growing. While currently the U.S. is experiencing a period of economic expansion, experts warn that this expansion will end prematurely if the U.S. does not relieve structural constraints on labor force participation, including over-expansive bans on employment of individuals with criminal records. Employment barriers faced by individuals with criminal records combined with the opioid epidemic have deflated the U.S. labor force participation rates, which today are as low as they were over 30 years ago1. The 70 to 100 million 1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor. Available at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000. people in the US with an arrest or conviction record face barriers that exacerbate poverty and lead to recidivism. Analysis from the Prison Policy Initiative shows that formerly incarcerated people are unemployed at a rate of over 27% — higher than the total U.S. unemployment rate during any historical period, including the Great Depression. As labor markets continue to tighten, the federal government should not increase barriers to employment through OPM’s proposed changes, but instead should serve as an exemplary employer and support pathways to employment, including for individuals with criminal and diversion records. By making workforce development, diversion programs, and reentry services a priority, the nation can fulfill labor market demands, contribute to a growing economy, and build strong and safe communities. OPM’s proposed changes also undermine the Administration’s bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, such as the recently enacted First Step Act. Through the First Step Act, the Administration has promoted the benefits of reentry and has sought to reward rehabilitation. This process must include limiting the collateral consequences of arrest, diversion, and conviction records on individuals, their families, and communities, including in the employment context. Finally, Safer Foundation objects to the proposed requirement to report aliases on OF306 (Question 5) because it can cause severe unintended consequences to members of the transgender community and domestic violence survivors. Many transgender people change their name to better align with their gender, and some domestic violence survivors also do so in order to protect their identities from their abusers. However, in many states, the process associated with a legal name change can be time consuming, cumbersome and costly, often exceeding $400 in court fees and other expenses. By creating these and other new reporting requirements, OPM not only undermines the employment prospects of individuals with records and others who would be directly impacted by the proposed changes, but they also discourage qualified workers both from seeking and accepting employment within the federal government, either as a federal worker or as a federal contractor. The federal government can ill afford to disadvantage itself in this competitive economy by losing access to qualified workers in today’s tight labor market. Thank you for your time and consideration of Safer Foundation’s comments, and please feel free to contact Sodiqa Williams at (312) 922-2200 if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Victor Dickson CEO & President Safer Foundation |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2426 | PRESERVE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE REFORMS. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2654 | Lets stop the nonsense Please, Undermining President Trump. Let congress get back to Work solving important issues like BUILDING THE WALL AND REPEALING THE REST OF OBAMACARE. Everybody knows it will lead to Socialized Medicine. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2517 | Please stop undermining President Trumps Justice Reform Package which has already made great strides in the improvement of our system of law and social reform. | 1 | ||||
| Campaign for Youth Justice-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2085 | April 22, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Submitted via Regulations.gov Re: Comments to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod, On behalf of the Campaign for Youth Justice, we are writing in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. CFYJ is a national organization whose mission is to end the practice of prosecuting, sentencing, and incarcerating youth under the age of 18 in the adult criminal justice system. The strategic goals of CFYJ are to reduce the total number of youth prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system and to decrease the harmful impact of trying youth in adult court. We accomplish this through both federal and state-level advocacy by urging lawmakers to pass laws to keep youth out of the adult criminal justice system. One of the many negative consequences of prosecuting youth as adults is that youth sentenced as adults carry their criminal record for their entire life, diminishing chances to find jobs, access decent housing, obtain students loans, and go to college, join the military, or even vote. For this reason, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they undermine the ability of young people with an arrest or conviction record to compete fairly for employment. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.”1 Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. While the form instructs that answers to Question 9 should omit any violations of the law that 1 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. 2 were committed before a person's sixteenth birthday, any violation of the law committed before a person's eighteenth birthday if decided in juvenile court or under a youth offender law, or any conviction set aside under the Federal Youth Corrections Act or similar state law, this would still exclude a number of young people. For example, there are a number of states where youth under eighteen are automatically deemed to be adults in the eyes of law.2 Further, every state in the country has some mechanism that allows youth to be charged as adults.3 These laws have a disproportionate impact on minority youth. In 2014, Black youth were 14% of the youth population nationally, but 52.5% of the youth transferred to adult court by juvenile court judges, the highest percentage of Black youth transferred in nearly thirty years of data collection.4 These proposed changes would undermine bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the federal First Step Act, that seek to promote and reward rehabilitation and limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on the individual, their families and communities. OPM’s proposed policy would also have a particularly harmful and disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in such diversion programs. These proposed changes are completely at odds with the President Trump’s recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. By creating these new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining the employment prospects of people with records and others who are directly impacted by the reforms, but it is also discouraging well qualified workers from both seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rachel Marshall Marcy Mistrett Federal Policy Counsel Chief Executive Officer [email protected] [email protected] 2 John Kelly, In Another Big Year for “Raise the Age” Laws, One State Now Considers All Teens as Juveniles, THE CHRONICLE OF SOCIAL CHANGE (June 25, 2018), https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/youth-services-insider/juvenile-justice-raise-the-age-vermont-missouri-state-legislation (noting Georgia, Texas, Michigan, and Wisconsin set the age of criminal responsibility below 18). 3 JEREE THOMAS, ESQ, AND MEL WILSON, THE COLOR OF YOUTH TRANSFERRED TO THE ADULT SYSTEM: POLICY & PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS 1 (2017), available at http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Social_Justice_Brief_Youth_Transfers.Revised_copy_09-18-2018.pdf. 4 Child Population by Race in the United States, KIDS COUNT DATA CENTER, THE ANNIE E. CASEY FOUND., https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-race#detailed/1/any/false/870,573,869/68,69,67,12,70,66,71,72/424 (last visited Apr. 12, 2019); M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985-2014, https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/ (last visited Apr. 12, 2019). |
1 | ||||
| Prison Fellowship-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2384 | Dear Acting Director Margaret Weichert, On behalf of Prison Fellowship, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to Optional Form 306 (OF306). Prison Fellowship is the nations largest Christian nonprofit serving prisoners, former prisoners, and their families, and a leading advocate for criminal justice reform. Prison Fellowship was founded in 1976 by Charles Colson, a former aide to President Nixon who served seven months in federal prison for a Watergate-related crime. Today we strive to make prisons safer and more rehabilitative, advance criminal justice reforms, and support prisoners, their families, and their communities. Prison Fellowship is particularly concerned by one of the changes to OF306 which would require applicants for federal jobs and federal contract employment to disclose their past completion of a pretrial intervention or diversion program. Prison Fellowship supports the use of such programs, including veterans, mental health, and drug courts and restorative justice programs as alternatives to incarceration. These opportunities are designed to allow people to take accountability for their poor choices in a meaningful way while avoiding the collateral consequences that come from incarceration and a criminal record. We oppose adding a requirement for applicants to indicate diversion program participation on federal job applications. This change would run contrary to the purpose of diversion programs to allow participants to make amends without saddling them with the lifelong burden of a criminal record. Further, this information may unnecessarily hinder applicants at the outset of the process, before they have had a chance to fully display their job qualifications and experience. Not only should we avoid new policies that penalize people who have participated in diversion programs, more should be done to change current policies that prevent people with a criminal record from contributing to the workforce and community at their highest potential. An estimated one in three American adults have a criminal record. An estimated 44,000 legal collateral consequences are currently associated with having a criminal record, preventing people from attaining education, jobs, housing, and other things necessary for a full and productive life. For this reason, Prison Fellowship launched Second Chance Month in 2017, a nationwide effort to raise awareness about these barriers and unlock brighter futures for people with a criminal record. Over 300 organizations, businesses, and congregations have partnered with Prison Fellowship in celebrating April as Second Chance Month. As documented in the Punishment Without End report (attached) by John Jay College that was commissioned by Prison Fellowship, a person with a criminal record who has demonstrated an ability to live crime-free eventually reaches the convergence point where their risk of recidivism declines to the same risk level as an individual who has never been convicted of a crime. Yet, contrary to this data, so many of our laws and policies reflect a lifetime of unnecessary barriers that do not advance public safety. This Administration has demonstrated leadership in a more restorative approach to criminal justice reform, helping pass and sign the First Step Act and declaring April Second Chance Month for two years in a row. Requiring past involvement in diversion programs to be disclosed immediately on applications does not align with the Administrations approach. As a Christian non-profit, Prison Fellowship was established on the belief that all people are created in Gods image and that no life is beyond His reach. We respectfully request that this Administration continue to lead with a restorative approach to criminal justice reform by rejecting the proposed change to OF306 to require federal job applicants and federal contract employers to disclose their past completion of a diversion program. The federal government should serve as a model employer for private employers through a hiring process that embraces redemption and second chances. Thank you for your consideration. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2673 | Stop those trying to undermine President Trumps conservative justice reforms. He has done more on 2 1/2 years than others accomplished in 8 years. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2465 | Our country needs the Justice Reform that President Trump is trying to enforce, to keep this country & its citizens safe. This would include massive immigration reform, no amnesty for anyone, end all benefits to illegals, end diversity Lottery, end chain migration, suspend H2B visas until every American has a job, including welfare recipients. No green cards for DACA parents only deportation, DACA's go to the end of line to apply for residency, no citizenship allowed. End birthright citizenship, voter ID law, includes verification of citizenship, photo ID at voting booth, manual signature required, no X's accepted. No ballot harvesting. any violation must include prison time, no plea deals, min. 10 yrs-30 yrs. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2380 | Please support President Trumps Conservative Justice Reform. Please seek to work with him to bring our nation back to Godliness and truth in justice. Our great nation was founded on God, His Word, His principles and guidelines set forth in His Word. We will all stand before God some day and be judged according to His Word! May God bless you and your family as you make our nation great again. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2652 | STOP THEM |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2261 | I write to oppose the collection of information about persons who have been diverted from incarceration and making this publicly available. Diversion is a lesser punishment than incarceration and used with more minor offenses. When people have completed their punishment I think it is grossly unfair to further identify them as ex-offenders in any way. Doing so means that they never have a chance to be clear and paying their debt to society is never possible. Such government actions lead ex-offenders back into activities that may put them on the road to further illegal and criminal activity. For minor offenses with diversion there is no judgment of criminal activity, and their record should remain sealed. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2561 | You need to stop undermining President Trump's conservative reforms and abandon your ridiculous regulations now. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2453 | to stop the deep state from undermining president Trump and to stop the harassment. | 1 | ||||
| Georgia Legal Services-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2291 | On behalf of Georgia Legal Services, I am writing to oppose the proposed changes to the Declaration for Federal Employment (OF306) because of the impact it would have on Georgians with a criminal record. Georgia Legal Services is dedicated to providing opportunities out of poverty by providing legal representation and assistance to low-income people. We serve clients in 154 of the 159 counties in Georgia. Over 4 million Georgians have a criminal record, which is nearly 1 out of every 2 adults. Many of our clients have a criminal record. Because of our clients experiences, we strongly oppose the proposed change because it broadens the category of people with a criminal record to include non-convictions resulting from a diversionary or pretrial program. Non-convictions are almost never relevant to employment and should not be used to deny employment opportunities. In Georgia, non-convictions before 2013 are not expungable from someones record outside of a time-consuming process, and employers continue to use non-convictions because they do not understand what PTI (pre-trial intervention) or diversion court means. This poor practice should not be continued by the Federal Government in its hiring determinations. The proposed changes stand in contrast to recent federal bipartisan criminal justice reform efforts and state reforms that seek to limit the impact of an arrest. Some of Georgias diversion programs were specifically created to help keep those with substance abuse issues or mental health diagnoses out of jail and provide them better opportunities. The proposed changes directly contradict the intent behind these initiatives. By creating these and other new reporting requirements, OPM unnecessarily excludes well-qualified workers from employment with the federal government and frustrates hard-working people from moving past a criminal arrest. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Nancy DeVetter Georgia Legal Services Program |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2412 | Support the President with bi-partisan efforts. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2602 | You LIBERALS need to stop being **Obstructionists** and start doing what is right for this country and stop doing what is twisted and wrong!!! ..... | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2537 | Please STOP the Horrible Undermining Of President Donald Trump conservative Reforms and pleas abandon the ridiculous regulation now. Our president has had enough of the Harassment from people that just Hate him. Our President Trump has done so much for our economy and America and the American people. Thank you, |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2645 | Stop undermining President Trumps agendas. They are working for Americans. The American people voted him in for a reason. Please support his conservative agendas. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2703 | Please help OUR president pass theses justice reform bill. We need to pull together and make some serious adjustments to our justice department. Please help him push this through. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2731 | I demand that you step aside and allow our Great President Trump to continue his conservative justice reforms. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2320 | Do not create rules to stop our good policies. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2651 | Please stop this insanity directed toward our president Trump. We are sick of all the undermining and out and out lies!!! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2709 | This should be a bipartisan issue that every one can get behind, what's the problem? | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2559 | Stop playing politics and get to work for the American people. You know, the people who you work for. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2445 | This seems like this would be right for America. Let's try that!! | 1 | ||||
| Maryland CURE-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-24-19; #0114 | (i) Is the informationnecessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency [with] practical utility? The answer to this question is no for two reasons: a) Information regarding pretrial diversions short of convictions has little value, since the courts and prosecutors approving such diversions already have evaluated the underlying charges as not serious enough to require further action. b) Therefore, the federal agency resources needed to further pursue information about the underlying circumstances would be poorly allocated. Beyond this, U.S. government policy should encourage and not discourage criminal courts to resolve less serious charges without trial when this is acceptable to all parties. Such a policy will avoid our recent trend towards over-criminalization and reduce criminal justice-related costs to taxpayers. (ii) Has the agencys [correctly estimated] the burden of the proposed collection of information? There might be little burden to collect the answers to the revised question, unless and until the agency was sued. But the real burden isnt tabulating the answers on a form, the real burden comes from the follow-up necessary to make intelligent use of the answers. Per comment (i), the effort necessarily would far exceed the value of charges already deemed not serious enough for prosecution by stakeholders who already have more knowledge. (iii) Would the regulation enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? The answer to this question is no for the same reasons discussed above. The quality of the information would be minimal. Many times, court-imposed conditions may be as trivial as pay the court costs or commit no new offenses within the next two years. Yet, federal investigators could be compelled to spend hours or days of follow-up to verify the years-old information then second-guess prosecutors, judges, and other stakeholders who, with more information, already decided it was not appropriate to pursue charges and to dispose of such matters without criminal convictions based on fuller and fresher information than was available to the federal investigators. If a federal agency simply presumed that an individual probably was guilty of the underlying charges, or that he or she probably has an ongoing character defect that necessitated the diversion, this would violate the U.S. Constitution in more than one way (two examples being presumption of innocence and due process). Actual facts can differ greatly from allegations, and individuals often consent to diversion terms in order to avoid even a slight risk of criminal conviction." |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2616 | These bureaucrats to stop undermining President Trump and abandon their insane regulation. These bureaucrats to stop undermining President Trump's conservative reforms and abandon their ridiculous regulation now. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2269 | On December 21, 2018, President Trump signed a criminal justice reform legislation that would afford numerous Americans a second chance at becoming self-thriving and/or contributing members of America's society. Four months later, a rule change occurred within the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) Declaration for Federal Employment which directly impacts those seeking federal government work opportunities. This proposed rule change would require people who have successfully completed diversion programs to disclose diversion participation information when applying for a job in federal government. The problem is: the whole point of completing a diversion program is to avoid a criminal conviction and the challenges that come with it. If this rule is implemented, individuals who were charged with petty offenses but were given a second chance by a judge to avoid a criminal conviction will have to endure the same stigma as others with criminal records, and will be less likely to be offered jobs, even when they are well-qualified. As a country of country-members seeking transparency in government and as a government offering transparency to it's citzens, further indepth conversation about the total impacts of such a change to not only the current rule but with mandating the proposed changes should be had so that all citizens and governing officials have had opportunities to gain knowledge of and possibly understand what said change is and what it could lead to; will it end with disclosure for federal employment only to later be implemented in state and private sectors? What are all of the other challenges created by this rule change yet to be recognized? I offer an alternate suggestion which may be more accepting of all aforementioned parties. Instead, create methods for ensuring that federal employers are hiring the appropriate/desirable candidates. One method of ensuring that federal employers such as those requiring security clearances are not hiring undesirables is to no longer allow diversion options to those offenders who have committed 2 or more morally reprehensible offenses even as first time offenses. This would hold the applicant accountable for disclosing the offending information to the employer, would deter recidivism in morally reprehensible crimes, and minimizes the likelihood that a repeat offender would be hired for employment within a federal agency that could consider such a party for employment. This suggestion isn't necessarily a feasible remedy to a legitimate government concern. It is; however, proof further conversation should be had by others beyond the President's administration to receive greater input/feedback and a more positive solution to federal employers possibly hiring participants of diversion programs. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2719 | Stop the nonsense & legislate! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2256 | Support our main Re presenter of freedom in America. Our Congress has failed us so badly. As well as some members of the Senate! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2518 | Dear Mr President I'm with you all the way. Keep pushing back on the dark state. Is time to clean house. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2410 | Re: Rule to block President Trump's Justice Reform Bill Dear OPR: This rule would essentially BLACKLIST millions of Americans from millions of potential jobs for doing the right thing and putting in the hard work of turning their life around, even if they were never convicted of a crime. That makes it more likely they'll turn to crime and make YOUR community less safe. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2402 | Save our President, Save the Republic. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2328 | Give us back our freedom. God Bless America in Jesus' Name! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2573 | I will vote for Presdent Trump in 2020. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2439 | I'm writing to encourage your support for President Trump's Conservative Justice Reforms. I want these established and will not settle for anything less. Please do the right thing for the good of our nation and work with the President! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2572 | Please stand behind our President !!! | 1 | ||||
| Life for Pot-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2248 | Please withdraw OPM's proposal for Non Conviction records disclosure. This proposal is contrary to the current consensus that the consequences of engagement with law enforcement should not hinder a citizens ability to be a contributing member of their community. It also adds to the cost of administration and is fiscally irresponsible. Beth Curtis MSW Director Life for Pot |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2524 | PLEASE STOP undermining OUR POTUS & do your job that we elected you to do. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2527 | I am in support of the justice reforms that President Trump has put in place. I do not appreciate them being undermined. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2718 | Please stop interfering with policies that are finally working for America and the American people. We voted for a president who would do EXACTLY what President Trump is doing. | 1 | ||||
| Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0102 | Opposition to proposed revision of OPM form OF 306, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2) The Office of Personnel Management has proposed modification to its OF 306 application for use by prospective federal employees or contractors, requiring them to disclose any case in which they have been participated in a pretrial intervention or diversionary program and been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed. As a former prosecutor, defense attorney and state judge, retired from many years service in both criminal and juvenile courts, I think this expanded disclosure requirement will waste federal investigators time and, thus, taxpayers funds with comparatively little useful information resulting. Responding to the specific questions raised by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2) for evaluation of such regulations, here are more specific comments: (i) Is the informationnecessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency[with] practical utility? The answer to this question is no for three reasons- a) information as to pretrial diversions short of convictions has little value since the courts & prosecutors approving such diversions already have evaluated the underlying charges as not serious enough to require further action and, therefore, b) the federal agency resources needed to further pursue information about the underlying circumstances would be poorly allocated. c) Beyond this, U.S. government policy should encourage and not discourage criminal courts to resolve less serious charges without trial when this is acceptable to all parties both to avoid our recent trend towards over criminalization and to reduce criminal justice-related costs to taxpayers. (ii) Has the agencys [correctly estimated] the burden of the proposed collection of information? There might be little burden to collect the answers to the revised question, unless and until the agency is sued. But the real burden isnt tabulating the answers on a form, the real burden comes from the follow-up necessary to make intelligent use of the answers. Per comment (i), the effort necessarily would far exceed the value of charges already deemed not serious enough for prosecution by stakeholders who already had more contemporaneous knowledge. (iii) Would the regulation enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected The answer to this question is no for the same reasons discussed above. The quality of the information would be minimal. Many times, court imposed conditions may be as trivial as pay the court costs or commit no new offenses within the next two years. Yet, federal investigators could be compelled to spend hours or days of follow-up to verify the years-old information and, then, second-guess prosecutors, judges, and other stakeholders who, with more information, already decided it was not appropriate to pursue charges and to dispose of such matters without criminal convictions based on fuller and fresher information than was available to the federal investigators. (iv) Would the regulation minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? The answer to this question is no. While the initial disclosure of a diversion can be automated, the necessary follow-up definitely cannot be automated. The mere fact of charges and of a diversion doesnt reveal the myriad possible underlying evidence that may have led to the diversion agreement. If a federal agency simply presumed that an individual probably was guilty of the underlying charges, or that he or she probably has an ongoing character defect that necessitated the diversion, this would violate the U.S. Constitution in more than one way (two examples being presumption of innocence and due process). Actual facts can differ greatly from allegations and individuals often consent to diversion terms that could be considered unnecessary in order to avoid even a slight risk of criminal conviction. With rare exceptions, a pursuit of such inquiries would lead the federal investigator "down a rabbit-hole, perhaps many years after the events, with slim hope of reliable findings. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2073 | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes. I am primarily concerned with the revision to Q.9 that would require applicants to report their participation in a pre-trial diversion program. This would require an affirmative response from applicants that have successfully completed these programs and were spared a recorded conviction. This proposed revision is completely antithetical to the recent progress in criminal justice reform that has been accomplished at both the state and federal levels. This revision would allow opportunities to continue the discrimination against applicants with limited criminal justice contact. I strongly urge you to drop this revision in the interest of promoting employment opportunities to those that deserve it. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1920 | Please do not ban this therapy | 5 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2543 | Work together for America and not degrade it. Like some new freshmen 2019 . If you are to help get to work quite your back biting name calling hate American attitude get with it.keep America rolling. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2689 | Thanks for your support of our hard working Pres. Trump. Sincerely Clifford. Swanson |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2695 | Stop trying to undermine all the good things that President Trump has been pursuing. He is truly putting America first. God is behind him & if you persist in trying to stop him you will find your self fighting against God. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2319 | If you truly value your contractual agreements & the country that feeds, clothes & supports you must stop undermining it |
1 | ||||
| UHA Mechanic-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2668 | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Grf-kIcwlM Child support and family law abusos corruptos - YouTubehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uG0q0ACGOlU Fastrak.org corrupcin - YouTube https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vk6mPZv5rF8 Stop and clean up ca.org.gov.us - YouTube https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fZEFBTt7TxM Family law and child support corrupcion. - YouTube |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2433 | These bureaucrats to stop undermining President Trump and abandon their insane regulation. These bureaucrats to stop undermining President Trump's conservative reforms and abandon their ridiculous regulation now. |
1 | ||||
| Maryland Justice Policy Institute-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1416 | I strongly support the development and implementation of programs to divert cases from the criminal law and the civil law courts. We attempt to prosecute so many cases that the system can not function properly resulting in a large number of persons being punished without due process at great expense to the tax payers. The current system has resulted in virtually all cases being decided by plea bargains which has the consequence of depriving defendants of a fair trial and of making it virtually impossible for the lawyers (both the prosecutors and the public defenders) to prepare and to learn how to try cases in the proper way to determine the truth. Also please consider my strong endorsement of the comments submitted by retired Maryland Circuit Court Judge Phillip Caroom who submitted his comments on behalf of the Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform. In addition, I would support programs that encourage the use of diversion, such as a program to loan public funds to alleged offenders in order for them to pay restitution or to perform some other service agreed upon in a restorative justice setting. The borrower should be allowed to pay off such loans with community service evaluated at market rates. If we rely on civil cases to compensate victims of crime, and if we divert the civil cases to restorative justice (cheaper and more user-friendly), we may be able to lessen the public pressure on prosecutors to believe that they represent the victims and therefor must prosecute every alleged crime. Selective enforcement of serious crimes will result in a better and more effective system of justice and will save a huge amount of public funds that could be used for education and job training that would actually reduce crime. Respectfully submitted by: Frank M. Dunbaugh, Executive Director of the Maryland Justice Policy Institute Inc., and retired trial lawyer, Section Chief and Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1994 | Do not require applicants for jobs to divulge diversion programs. The purpose of these diversion programs is to NOT ruin lives with a conviction for a minor offense which SHOULD NOT be prosecuted anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2332 | Now its time to investigate who is responsible for this witch-hunt and waste of tax payers $ and time that should have been spent on border security and health insurance! Things that really matter! Some people should see jail time for this abuse and waste! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2422 | I think all the shenanigans that are going on are a parent. Stop the deep state from interfering in President Trumps agenda | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2358 | Office of Personnel Management are trying to sneak through a new regulation that would totally undermine the justice reform! We cannot allow this to happen. These were HUGE steps to correct wrongs. You must reject and overturn any regulation that would harm such progress. Enough legislating with regulation. It needs to be through congress in the form of law! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2322 | One of the tragedies of our criminal justice system is that folks who have paid their debt and truned their life around are still stigmatized. We need to break the cycle and give them a chance. It is clear business as usual hasn't been working. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2425 | You must stop undermining President Trump's conservative reforms and abandon these ridiculous regulations now. It is time to return to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Stop seeking to control this Nation with your greed of Power, and hate. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2506 | Please Stop undermining President Trumps concervitive justice reform |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2340 | It's time to stop dithering on Criminal Justice Reforms: debate the legislation and then pass it! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2451 | Please support President Trump's justice reform bill and reduce over jealous government regulations. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2642 | Stop undermining President Trump's conservative justice reforms and do the job you were elected to do. Serve the American people not your personal agenda. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2371 | Do not undermine my Presidents justice reforms... Are you people loosing your minds! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2082 | This is a horrible idea. We should be making it easier - not harder - for people who are making good-faith efforts to improve their lot after making a mistake. The proposal is pinched, warped, malicious, spiteful, and cruel. Lets go not backward but forward, with love and compassion. Thank you in advance for any consideration. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2307 | Trump 2020. Build the wall and stop acting like asses. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2360 | Please stop undermining our president. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2692 | Please focus on your job instead of obstructing those who are trying to | 1 | ||||
| California Association of Nonprofits-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-24-19; #1985 | Unable to OPEN PDF | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2503 | Sir or Madame, I fully support the President's justice reforms. Do not pass regulation to neuter them. They are much needed. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2735 | Please Please support our president in all if his endeavors! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2614 | GOD bless you President Trump! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0047 | Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to Optional Form 306 (OF306). One of the changes to OF306 would require job applicants for federal jobs and federal contract employment to disclose their past completion of a diversion program. This change is counter to criminal justice research showing that people should not face extensive employment barriers because of past mistakes and is counter to the intent of diversion programs which allow people accused of minor mistakes to avoid a criminal record and the 45,000 collateral consequences that are associated with a record. First, people who have made mistakes in their past - including those who may have been convicted of a crime - deserve second chances to be successful. Meaningful employment is a key milestone, which helps people move forward in their lives. The federal government should be a model employer for second chances, and this rule would instead set a horrible precedent for private employers. Second, people who have completed a diversion program have not been convicted of a crime. In the interest of justice, courts offer diversion programs so that people are not saddled with the lifelong burden of a criminal record. This rule change would essentially undo the will of the courts by forcing people to reveal whether they've completed a diversion program. As Americans, we value hard work and strong qualifications, and believe that those qualities should allow you to advance professionally. The proposed rule conflicts with those values and will unnecessarily block the pathway to success for too many Americans, their families, and their communities. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1874 | Really, what difference would it make if a person error, cleaned up their situation and determined to start again. People really are humans; not robots or machines. We all have did something or another in our lives before. I am really discussed with whomever imposing as if they have never did any WRONG. Being in a division program helps individuals "right their wrongs". I believe this a scheme going on in America because it is just another way to keep a group of people from earning money, developing and growing in Federal/State/Private and other entities. Stop judging people by their past; especially if they have changed. One more thing; what does division have to do with a office, desk or warehouse job. Stop discriminating. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2592 | The only why to protect the US past present and future is the appointment of conservative jurists. To do otherwise will be the peril of future. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2683 | Stop undermining our President! Stop the shadow government! Stop trying to impeach! Stop all the lies!!!!!! So much corruption!!!!!! Tell nader & especially shift to "shut up"!!!!!! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2392 | Please write your comment here. Deep State; Stop trying to undermine the president's s conservative Justice feforms, He is doing a great job ,even with the democrats and news medias lying to the people all the time. TRUST TRUMP AND AMERICA WILL BE GREAT ONCE MORE, |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2579 | STOP UNDERMINING PRES. Trumps conservative agenda. Thank God we finally have a president that serves the people!!! Far better than the disastrous 8 horrible years of Obama!!! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2519 | Please do NOT change the amazing Justice Reform recently signed by Pres. Trump ! It would be a terrible dis-service to our nation! Thank you! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2682 | Our judicial system is serially understaffed. There is a Huge backlog of applicants. As a country we need these judicial positions filled. As a American it is your job to allow these professionals their chance to help America. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2385 | i Am deeply saddened and angry at how obstructive many of elected officials are being in blocking moves our president, Donald Trump, has made to improve the economy and day-to-day life of Americans. This once great country, the UNITED States is America, has become unrecognizable to those of us, myself included, who grew up in the 50s and 60s. I am absolutely appalled at what has happened and I beseech you to work WITH President Trump instead of blocking all the good he is committed to do. What kind of world are you offering the next generation, many of whom will be your children and grandchildren? This nation is doomed if you continue on this path to socialism. |
1 | ||||
| Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2290 | CONCLUSION Requiring applicants for federal service to disclose their successful completion of a diversion program and the dismissed charges that occasioned participation in the program makes no sense. OPM does not even attempt to articulate a need to which the change responds, nor does it provide any reason for the change. The proposed requirement is not supported by analysis or data; yet its consequences are real and potentially widespread. The inevitable result will be to reduce significant employment opportunities for persons who have had relatively minor run-ins with the criminal system, sow confusion, and disproportionately harm African Americans who are employed in the federal workforce at a higher rate than persons who are white. It is disturbing that OPM would undertake a policy that directly undermines a critical tool that state criminal system use to constructively resolve minor offenses, and that runs directly counter to congressional and administration policy regarding criminal system reform. We urge OPM to abandon its misguided proposal. |
The Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, the Public Interest Law Center, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law oppose the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) proposed rule change that would require applicants for federal employment to disclose that they have successfully completed court or judge specified requirements in exchange for criminal charges against them being dismissedoften referred to as diversion. According to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the information will be used to determine a persons acceptability for Federal and Federal contractor employment. As set forth in the attached Comments, OPM has offered no explanation of how this information is relevant to eligibility for government employment or employment with a government contractor. Instead, required disclosure of completion of a diversion program will likely chill or exclude eligible and qualified applicants, create confusion about what must be disclosed, and will further racial inequities, disparately impacting African-American applicants. Required disclosure subverts the important and demonstrably successful purposes of diversion programs, essentially negates state court decision-making, and runs counter to bipartisan federal policy. 1 AGENCY: OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DOCKET ID: OPM-2019-0002 AGENCY INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES; PROPOSALS, SUBMISSIONS, AND APPROVALS: DECLARATION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, the Public Interest Law Center, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law1 oppose the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) proposed rule change that would require applicants for federal employment to disclose that they have successfully completed court or judge specified requirements in exchange for criminal charges against them being dismissed—often referred to as “diversion.” According to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the information will be used “to determine a person’s acceptability for Federal and Federal contractor employment.” OPM has offered no explanation of how this information is relevant to eligibility for government employment or employment with a government contractor. Instead, required disclosure of completion of a diversion program will likely chill or exclude eligible and qualified applicants, create confusion about what must be disclosed, and will further racial inequities, disparately impacting African-American applicants. Required disclosure subverts the important and demonstrably successful purposes of diversion programs, essentially negates state court decision-making, and runs counter to bipartisan federal policy. I. The Proposal Thwarts the Valuable Purpose of Diversion Programs Diversion programs are a critically important element of many state criminal justice systems. They allow a person accused of a crime to avoid a criminal prosecution by completing certain requirements, such as community service. Although diversion programs vary across the 1 Founded in 1968, The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs works to create legal, economic and social equity through litigation, client and public education and public policy advocacy. While we fight discrimination against all people, we recognize the central role that current and historic race discrimination plays in sustaining inequity and recognize the critical importance of identifying, exposing, combating and dismantling the systems that sustain racial oppression. The Public Interest Law Center, part of the national consortium of affiliates of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, uses high-impact legal strategies to advance the civil, social, and economic rights of communities in the Philadelphia region facing discrimination, inequality, and poverty. Through its Fair Employment Opportunities Project, the Law Center uses litigation, community education, and advocacy to address the widespread discriminatory use of criminal background checks in hiring which creates nearly insurmountable barriers for large numbers of individuals of color in obtaining the employment they need to lead stable and sustainable lives and contribute to their families and communities. The principle mission of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities. The Lawyers’ Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar’s leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity – work that continues to be vital today. country, they typically are available only to those accused of non-violent crimes who have no criminal record. By definition, applicants who have criminal charges dismissed in exchange for completing court-ordered requirements (diversion) have been found by a judge to have demonstrated—on the basis of their record and the facts of underlying the criminal charges—that that they should not be convicted of a crime and should not bear the life-long consequences of a criminal conviction. They have adhered to a program designed to demonstrate a readiness and ability to participate in society. Their success enables them to avoid a host of negative consequences of a criminal conviction, including un- or under-employment and housing instability. Additionally, the explanation of the change in OPM’s Notice and Request for Comments suggests that it may have an even more far-ranging effect than disclosure of having completed a diversion program, explaining that, through the rule change, “OPM is proposing to add a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” Presumably, this means that an applicant for employment must identify the charges brought against the person. This is in itself problematic, because prosecutors may enumerate a litany of charges, most of which are dropped or used to negotiate a plea. They therefore may have been over-charged, and the charges may not reflect the lack of gravity of the allegedly wrongful act(s). The individual may not remember all of the charges, and may therefore not be able to give a complete answer to the question. Or, because of the range of types of diversion programs across state and local criminal systems, the applicant may not know whether the particular program they participated in is one that must be disclosed. This understandable confusion may result in additional negative consequences for having failed to disclose having required information. Finally, if OPM is actually requiring the individual to “admit” to those charges—which the person may have contested and which have never been proven—OPM is abusing its power as a large employer, to extort from an individual that which the justice system was unwilling or unable to do. Generally, people who are offered diversion are told that, if they simply abide by terms set by a judge—such as completing community service, undergoing substance abuse treatment, or simply remaining crime free for a period of time—the charges against them will be dismissed and they will not be convicted of a crime. In many diversion programs, the person is not required to admit guilt and a judge never makes a finding of guilt. With this understanding, many people who are offered diversion engage in a cost-benefit analysis and decide to complete diversion rather than engage in the lengthy, disruptive and risky process of contesting the charges against them. They avoid missing work for court appearances, are relieved of the anxiety of criminal charges hanging over their heads, and eliminate the risk of a criminal conviction. People who make this choice rely on the promise made by a judge and, in many instances, a prosecutor, that the charges will be wiped from their record. They give up their right to contest the charges against them on the good faith belief in this promise. Thus, by requiring disclosure of successful completion of a diversion program, the proposed OPM rule takes away the clean slate that the diversion option offered and upon which many relied in agreeing to give up their right to contest the charges. II. The proposed rule does not address any existing problem, need or legitimate goal. Other than referring to a “gap” in the current rule, the proposed revision does not identify a problem the change is intended to address, resolve a shortcoming in the current rule that adversely impacts the federal government as an employer, or further an articulated governmental interest or goal.2 In proposing the rule change, OPM has not provided any data that ties successful completion of a diversion program to suitability for any and all federal employment. Indeed, there is no such link. To the contrary, as discussed below, programs that lead to employment will reduce recidivism. That is the goal of diversion: to enable persons accused of low level crimes to move on and lead crime-free lives, without being saddled with the life-long consequences of criminal convictions, including their adverse impact on employment prospects. III. The proposed rule change will have a negative, unfair and disproportionate effect on African-American applicants for federal employment. It is well established that African Americans are more likely to be arrested and charged with crimes than their white peers, and face discrimination at each stage of the criminal justice system, including during pleas bargaining.3 These disparities are influenced by a broad array of factors that compound one another: disparities in the way communities of color are policed; disparities in resource allocation; discrimination in employment; and bias on the part of police officers and prosecutors. As a consequence, African Americans are more likely to be ensnared in the criminal justice system and may face a higher bar before being given the opportunity to have their case dismissed in exchange for completing court ordered terms. Examples of disparate and over-policing abound: A report of the United States Department of Health and Human Services found a “significantly higher likelihood of having ever been arrested among blacks, when compared to whites, even after accounting for a range of delinquent behaviors.”4 A study of arrests reported to the FBI between 2011 and 2012 revealed that African Americans were more likely to be arrested than other racial groups in almost every city for almost every type of crime. At least 70 police departments arrested African Americans at a rate 10 times higher than other groups.5 2 In this regard, the Notice simply notes that, under the current rule, persons who have successfully completed diversion currently may not have to “report the details of the offense” and the change closes that “gap.” However, as explained above, the ability not to disclose the charged offense is among the results that diversion programs are designed to achieve, in exchange for which the applicant gives up the right to contest the charge. Nowhere does OPM justify a need for any, much less all federal employers and their contractors, to know the details of an alleged offense that has not been proven and which was to have been removed from the individual’s record in order for that person to continue to engage in, and contribute to, their community. 3 See, generally, Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness (rev. ed. 2012); Angela J. Davis, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor (2007). 4 Understanding Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Arrest: The Role of Individual, Home, School and Community Characteristics; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509345/ 5 Brad Heath, Racial gap in U.S. arrest rates: ‘Staggering disparity,’ USA TODAY, November 18, 2014, available at In its investigation of the Baltimore Police Department, the United States Department of Justice determined that there were large racial disparities in pedestrian and vehicle stops throughout Baltimore. Officers also searched African Americans at higher rates during these stops, even though searches of African Americans were less likely to find contraband than searches of people from other racial backgrounds. The Department of Justice found that these disparities in search rates could not be explained by characteristics other than race. Baltimore officers also arrested African Americans at much higher rates that their white peers. The discriminatory pattern of arrests was particularly apparent in warrantless arrests for discretionary misdemeanor offenses such as disorderly conduct and failing to obey an officer’s order and arrests for drug possession, the types of offenses for which diversion often is offered.6 A recent report by the ACLU of Pennsylvania showed that, in every neighborhood in Philadelphia, Black pedestrians were stopped by police officers out of proportion to their percentage of the local population. The racial disparities in stops are widest in neighborhoods in which Black Philadelphians make up a lower percentage of the population and that the disparities cannot be explained by factors other than race.7 In a study of enforcement of the District of Columbia’s fare evasion statute, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs found that 91% of citations for failing to pay the fare on Washington DC’s public transportation system were given to African Americans, despite the fact that African Americans comprise only approximately 50% of the population of Washington, DC.8 A 2014 report by the Vera Institute that analyzed criminal cases in New York concluded that, after controlling for the influence of other factors (like charge seriousness or prior records), Black defendants were unfairly treated in charging decisions, detention decisions and in plea bargaining: 10% more likely than similarly-situated white defendants to be detained after arraignment; 20% more likely than similarly-situated white defendants to be detained after arraignment for misdemeanor person offenses; https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/ 6 United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department, August 10, 2016, available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/883296/download. 7 Pl.’s Ninth Report to Ct. and Monitor on Stop and Frisk Practices, Bailey v. Philadelphia C.A. No. 10-592 (E.D. Pa. 2010). 8 Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, UNFAIR: Disparities in Fare Evasion Enforcement by Metro Police, available at https://www.washlaw.org/pdf/2018_09_13_unfair_disparity_fair_evasion_enforcement_report.PDF. 13% more likely than similarly-situated white defendants to receive custodial sentence offers; 27% more likely than similarly-situated white defendants to receive a custodial sentence offer in cases involving drug misdemeanors; 19% more likely than similarly-situated white defendants to receive a punitive sentence offer in cases involving misdemeanor marijuana.9 A similar study of criminal cases in Wisconsin found “significant racial disparities” during the plea-bargaining process: white defendants were 25% more likely than Black defendants to have their principal initial charge dropped or reduced to a lesser crime and that, as a result, white defendants who initially faced felony charges are less likely than black defendants to be convicted of a felony. Similarly, white defendants initially charged with misdemeanors are more likely than Black defendants to be convicted for crimes carrying no possible incarceration or not being convicted at all.10 In sum, because African-American applicants for federal employment are more likely than their white peers to have been arrested, are more likely to be charged, and are more likely to be detained after arrest (which increased the pressure to accept a plea bargain), and are more likely to receive diversion for charges that would have been dismissed outright or not brought at all against white defendants, this rule change will disproportionately affect otherwise qualified African-American applicants. This disproportionate effect is significant given the fact that the federal government is a large employer of African Americans. OPM’s most recent data show that 18.15% of the federal work force is Black,11 much larger than the 13.4 % of the United States population that identity as Black or African American.12 If successful completion of diversion is negatively considered when considering suitability for employment, it will have a greater proportionate impact on persons of color. Given the wide range of federal employment opportunities throughout the country, the likely outcome of deterring or excluding applicants of color deprives many of a hard-earned opportunity to achieve a stable economic foothold. This effect will be deeply felt in the Washington, DC region, where the federal government is the largest single employer, 9 See Besiki Luka Kutateladze & Nancy R. Andiloro, Prosecution and Racial Justice in New York County: Technical Report, VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, Jan. 2014, available at https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-webassets/ downloads/Publications/race-and-prosecution-in-manhattan/legacy_downloads/race-and-prosecutionmanhattan- technical.pdf. 10 Carlos Berdejó, Criminalizing Race: Racial Disparities in Plea Bargaining, BOSTON COLLEGE L.R., Vol. 59, 2018. 11 OPM.Gov, Profile of Federal Civilian Non-Postal Employees, available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/ data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civiliannon- postal-employees/ 12 United States Census Bureau, Quick Facts, available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI225217#RHI225217 accounting for about 1 out of every 10 jobs in the area.13 IV. The proposed rule change undermines bipartisan criminal legal system reform efforts. In introducing the First Step Act, bipartisan legislation intended to give those impacted by the criminal legal system “a second chance at life after they have served their time,” President Trump acknowledged the importance of the principles that underlie diversion by remarking, “Americans from across the political spectrum can unite around prison reform legislation that will reduce crime while giving our fellow citizens a chance at redemption. So if something happens and they make a mistake, they get a second chance at life.”14 Requiring an individual to disclose prior involvement with the criminal system, despite successful completion of a diversion program in determining suitability for employment, undermines this goal and does not achieve any offsetting purpose. Indeed, preserving the clean slate afforded by diversion programs, thereby facilitating employment, will enhance public safety as well as individual stability. Multiple studies indicate that employment following contact with the criminal legal system lowers recidivism rates. For example, one study analyzing a five-year data set of people released from the Indiana Department of Corrections concluded that “an offender’s education and post-release employment were significantly and statistically correlated with recidivism, regardless of the offender’s classification.”15 A 2015 study that evaluated the impact of enhanced job-readiness training and job-search assistance programs on reducing recidivism rates found that “training designed to quickly place former inmates in jobs significantly decrease[s] the likelihood that ex-offenders with nonviolent histories will be rearrested.”16 An analysis of the impact of employment opportunities on recidivism among 1.7 million people released from a California prison between 1993 and 2008 similarly concluded that “increases in construction and manufacturing [employment] opportunities at the time of release are associated with significant reductions in recidivism.”17 Higher wages also are correlated with lower risks of recidivism. For example, a 2017 study on the impact of local labor market conditions on recidivism concluded that “being released to a county with higher low-skilled wages significantly decreases the risk of recidivism” and that this “impact of higher wages . . . is 13 Government of the District of Columbia Office of Revenue Analysis, DC economic Indicators, February 2019, available at https://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/EIFeb2019.pdf. 14 Remarks by President Trump on H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act, Nov. 14, 2018, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-h-r-5682-first-step-act/. 15 John M. Nally, et al., Post-release recidivism and employment among different types of released offenders: a 5- year follow-up study in the United States, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SCIENCES, Vol. 9, 2014, available at http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/nallyetalijcjs2014vol9issue1.pdf. 16 Aaron Yelowitz & Christopher Bollinger, Prison-to-Work: The benefits of intensive job-search assistance for former inmates, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, Civic Report No. 96, March 2015, available at https://media4.manhattaninstitute. org/sites/default/files/cr_96.pdf. 17 Kevin T. Schnepel, Good jobs and recidivism, THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL, Vol. 128 (Feb. 2016), available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ecoj.12415. larger for both black offenders and first-time offenders.”18 President Trump acknowledged in particular the importance of employment after contact with the criminal justice system in explaining why his administration was supporting the First Step Act. He observed that American society as a whole is “better off when former inmates can receive and reenter society,” and that his administration’s “pledge to hire American includes those leaving prison and looking for a very fresh start.”19 Requiring applicants to disclose that they successfully completed diversion subverts the important aims of this bipartisan effort. CONCLUSION Requiring applicants for federal service to disclose their successful completion of a diversion program and the dismissed charges that occasioned participation in the program makes no sense. OPM does not even attempt to articulate a need to which the change responds, nor does it provide any reason for the change. The proposed requirement is not supported by analysis or data; yet its consequences are real and potentially widespread. The inevitable result will be to reduce significant employment opportunities for persons who have had relatively minor run-ins with the criminal system, sow confusion, and disproportionately harm African Americans who are employed in the federal workforce at a higher rate than persons who are white. It is disturbing that OPM would undertake a policy that directly undermines a critical tool that state criminal system use to constructively resolve minor offenses, and that runs directly counter to congressional and administration policy regarding criminal system reform. We urge OPM to abandon its misguided proposal. |
1 | |||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2682 | Our judicial system is serially understaffed. There is a Huge backlog of applicants. As a country we need these judicial positions filled. As a American it is your job to allow these professionals their chance to help America. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2385 | i Am deeply saddened and angry at how obstructive many of elected officials are being in blocking moves our president, Donald Trump, has made to improve the economy and day-to-day life of Americans. This once great country, the UNITED States is America, has become unrecognizable to those of us, myself included, who grew up in the 50s and 60s. I am absolutely appalled at what has happened and I beseech you to work WITH President Trump instead of blocking all the good he is committed to do. What kind of world are you offering the next generation, many of whom will be your children and grandchildren? This nation is doomed if you continue on this path to socialism. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2501 | Please keep walking tall Mr President. write your comment here. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2263 | Please stay true to your commitment to giving formerly incarcerated people a fresh chance at giving back to our communities and country. Please don't put any more obstacles in their path tham they already face. It's very tough to re-incorporate into the free world after putting in time. Give them a chance to present themselves as who they are NOW. Thank you for your consideration. (This is regarding question 9) |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2348 | We want a fair Justice system for all. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2594 | Y'all should have a real job, where if you screw-up you get fired, y'all screw-up you get a raise and a promotion and that's the government we pay for????? | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2590 | Stop the nonsensee write your comment here. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2678 | Donald Trump has done so much good for our country. Please do all you can to keep him as our President. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2509 | Please let President Trump do his job | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2249 | Including diversion programs on permanent records is the wrong thing to do. We are trying to encourage criminal justice systems to provide diversion programs as a way for people to not become caught up in a system that makes it more difficult for people to find jobs, housing, education and get a second chance. A first time offense, usually a misdemeanor such as graffiti or shoplifting or normal adolescent behavior should be dealt with using diversion and have it be a rehabilitative experience without permanent consequences. Do not take away this option. Diversion without creating a record that follows someone for life is better for the individual and better for society as a whole. Most people do not end up in the criminal justice system if they go to diversion programming for life assistance rather than punishment. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2674 | Please Support our president he is doing what is good for our nation | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2618 | To all concerned, support POTUS conservative justice reforms ur comment here. | 1 | ||||
| Warriors at Ease-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #0011 | The reason for diversion programs is not only to keep young offenders out of jail, but to give them a chance to establish a life focused on achieving professional and personal goals that will allow them to be contributing positive benefits into their communities. I oppose the proposed requirement that applicants for federal jobs disclose if they have ever participated in a diversion program. Doing so might lessen their chances of getting a federal job, having a stable income and meeting their goals. If an applicant is applying for a federal job it is a good sign that the applicant's experience in the diversion program was constructive because it means the person wants to have a stable life and to contribute to the common good. I can't see any reason why we would want to make that any harder for a young person who was able to change directions for the good. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2657 | Stop undermining President Trump's conservative reforms and abandon the ridiculous regulations that are being proposed with the intent of nullifying the fantastic job that the President is doing. | 1 | ||||
| Molly P. Hauck, PhD. LLC, Licensed Psychologist-Citizen | FedReg, 4-16-19; #0019 | I don't think that the Federal Government should ask people to disclose whether they have been in diversion programs. It is an invasion of privacy and could hurt people who have used marijuana recreationally and people of color who have been unfairly put in jail for doing things that white people do all the time. It is like the question on the Census form asking if someone was born in the U.S., just another way of discriminating against people who aren't. It is a form of racism. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2314 | Stop undermining Pres. Trump in everything!!!!! I warned RNC that if they don't keep the RINOS in line with Pres. Trump, like recently voting against his Executive Order for "The Wall" & other issues he wants, THAT THEY WILL NOT GET A DIME FROM ME!!!!!!!!!!! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2337 | In the interest of giving folks a second chance do not put forward this rule. As a retired federal employee I know we need as many good people as possible. Many folks need an opportunity to show they can be productive members of society and this could be their chance! | 1 | ||||
| Legal Services of Notheren Californina-Agency | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2586 | Stop undermining our President Trump and get on board the agenda for greatness. Our President is doing an excellent job. Just think what he can get done when resistance is stopped. LEGAL SERIIFIS April 23, 2019 Agency: Office of Personnel Management Docket Number: OPM FRDOC 0001 7 Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Declaration for Federal Employment Legal Services of Northern California writes to oppose the proposed changes to Question 9 in the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306. Specifically, LSNC maintains serious concerns as to Question 9's new requirement that people applying for federal and federal contract employment must disclose whether they have "[Neen subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed." Effectively, this requirement requires individuals to report participation in diversion programs. Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) is a non-profit legal aid organization which provides free legal services to thousands of clients annually, striving to deliver quality legal services that empower the poor to identify and defeat the causes and effects of poverty within their community. LSNC's eight offices and various programs regularly help low-income individuals apply for criminal record relief, obtain housing and employment, and remove barriers to successful reentry for those with criminal records. Nearly all of LSNC's clients who seek services related to their criminal record do so because of the challenges they have face obtaining employment due to conviction(s) that took place years — and often even decades — ago. California uses a variety of diversionary programs. Some are targeted to particularly vulnerable populations, such as veterans and those with mental health diagnoses. Others may be made available to residents who do not present a public safety risk and are accused of specified lowlevel, non-violent offenses. As such, diversionary programs are an important tool in California's service offerings to uphold public safety in our communities. Those who complete these programs are promised that they will not have a case on their record, which provides significant incentive for them to complete beneficial programs that enhance public safety and promote successful reentry. It is well established that employment is one of the most significant factors of recidivism; rates of re-arrest and conviction plummet when an individual obtains a job. In this way, erecting an unnecessary barrier to employment for individuals who have successfully completed diversionary programs would only serve to drive recidivism rates up. Especially given that diversionary programs are reserved for low-level offenders who do not pose a public safety risk, OPM's proposed change would be counter-productive to goals of enhancing public safety. We oppose limiting the employment opportunities of individuals who successfully complete diversionary programs and have no conviction on their record. We oppose treating these individuals similarly to others who have been convicted of a crime and to those sentenced to imprisonment or probation or parole. To do so would substantially defeat the purpose of diversionary programs that work well not only for the individuals who complete them, but also for their communities. The proposed question will undermine an important tool in our juvenile and criminal justice systems where individuals often engage in rehabilitative programming. It will prove counterproductive to reentry, community prosperity, and public safety. For these reasons, LSNC opposes the proposed amendment to Question 9 of OF 306. Sincerely, ,;•7 / Wade Askew Attorney Legal Services of Northern California |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2535 | Please start doing your jobs and working with the president. The fighting and trying to destroy him needs to stop. People are getting tired of nothing being accomplished because the left feels the need to try to stick it to President Trump every chance they get. Do. Your. Jobs. Stop wasting tax payers money trying to undermine things that are good for the people and this country. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2223 | Candidates for federal jobs who have no criminal record should not be subjected to additional scrutiny regarding criminal charges that may have been made and were later dismissed. Criminal charges are dismissed because, in the judgments of courts, the charges are not warranted. If charges are not warranted and no conviction has been recorded, then no purpose is served by modifying the question on the federal application for employment to elucidate whether in the judgment of some law enforcement or court official at some time and place charges may have been warranted. That the charges are considered dismissed settles the matter with respect to the potential applicant's involvement with the criminal justice system. The proposed change merely casts unwarranted aspersion on some federal job applicants who may have had minor or unjustified entanglements with the criminal justice system that were later adjudicated satisfactorily. This unwarranted aspersion serves no useful and legitimate purpose, and can lead to no job offer being made or job offers being withdrawn. President Trump's administration has made support for criminal justice reform a rightful part of its agenda. Resurrecting dismissed criminal charges in the consideration of federal employment runs counter to that set of goals. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2705 | Crime rates are declining and law and order is finally being restored, all thanks to President Trump's leadership through his justice reform bill. Stop undermining President Trump's conservative reforms and abandon your ridiculous regulation now. | 1 | ||||
| Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2272 | April 23, 2019 Submitted via www.regulations.gov Margaret Weichert Acting Director U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20415 Re: OPM-2019-0002 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Declaration for Federal Employment On behalf of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce (FP), we are writing in response to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise Optional Form 306 (OF306) published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2019. Although the proposed changes to federal hiring may be wellintentioned, requiring disclosure of any contact with the criminal justice system, even if it did not result in a conviction, does little to make us safer. Such disclosure does, however, limit the ability of Americans with arrest records to find employment, contribute to their communities, and provide for their families. This change deters otherwise-qualified applicants, reduces the quality of the federal workforce applicant pool, and has implications for the economic opportunity for countless Americans. For these reasons, AFP and FP stand in opposition. AFP recruits, educates, and mobilizes citizens to build a culture of mutual benefit where people succeed by helping others improve their lives. Along with our 35 state chapters and millions of grassroots activists, AFP works toward a criminal justice system that recognizes the potential of all people to transform their lives and contribute to society, ensuring rehabilitation accompanies punishment and providing second chances to those who are ready to improve their lives.1 FP believes in breaking down barriers that prevent people — especially the least fortunate – from pursuing and achieving their dreams. FP supports common-sense criminal justice policies 1 Americans for Prosperity, Our Elected Officials Can Transform Countless Lives During Second Chance Month (Apr. 8, 2019), https://americansforprosperity.org/our-elected-officials-can-transform-countless-lives-duringsecond- chance-month/; Mark v. Holden, Why Koch Industries ‘Banned the Box,’ WSJ (Aug. 17, 2016), https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-koch-industries-banned-the-box-1471473505. that pursue justice equally for all, inspire a culture of respect for every individual, protect and enhance public safety, and foster personal and societal transformation.2 Because of our commitment to removing barriers to opportunity for all people, especially the least advantaged, we believe the revisions to OF306 are counterproductive. I. Expanded inquiry into an applicant’s justice-involvement is unnecessary to achieve the goal of hiring a qualified workforce. Although the federal government should seek qualified individuals to fill open roles in agencies, the proposed changes to Question 9 on OF306 will create an unnecessary burden on applicants without enhancing the value of information for a hiring manager in a way that meaningfully improves public safety. The current version of OF306 asks applicants whether they have been convicted of “any crime” or offense.3 The proposed revision to this form asks applicants whether they have “Been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed.” This change is unnecessary for two reasons: (1) relevant information about criminal history is already captured by the current version of Question 9; and (2): such an inquiry would second-guess prosecutorial and judicial discretion about who must record a criminal offense. A. OPM already collects relevant information about an applicant’s criminal history in relation the job held or sought. The current version of OF306 provides a thorough review of an applicant’s crimes and offenses, including misdemeanors and felonies.4 Although the existence of a criminal conviction should never be a bar to employment overall, in some cases, the nature of the offense might prove relevant for public safety in making a hiring decision for a specific role.5 But this is not what the proposed revision would do. Instead of collecting information about serious crimes, expanding Question 9 would require disclosing information about mere contact with the criminal justice system, even for conduct that that did not lead to a charge or a conviction. This could mean that uncharged, dismissed, or diverted cases—those implicating the fewest safety concerns—would be subject to reporting.6 If the goal of criminal background checks is to “protect the integrity or 2 Freedom Partners, Criminal Justice Reform (Accessed Apr. 22, 2019), https://freedompartners.org/issue/criminaljustice- reform/ 3 Optional Form 306, page 2, question 9 (Revised February 2016). 4 Question 9 captures information about probation, parole, and all offenses, including: felonies, firearms or explosives violations, misdemeanors, and all other offenses. Id at 2. 5 See Robert H. Shriver, III, Written Testimony of Robert H. Shriver, III, Senior Policy Counsel for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, U.S. EQUAL EMP'T OPPORTUNITY COMM'N, (Jul. 26, 2011), http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/7-26-11/shriver.cfm (stating that “with just a few exceptions, criminal convictions do not automatically disqualify an applicant from employment in the competitive civil service.”). 6 Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Best Practice Standards: The Proper Use of Criminal Records in Hiring (May 21, 2013), https://hirenetwork.org/sites/default/files/Best-Practices-Standards-The-Proper-Use-ofpromote the efficiency of the service,”7 then OPM should focus on past behavior that directly relates to the duties and functions of the job held or sought. Even if the revised version OF306 is not submitted until very late in the hiring process when a conditional offer has been made, the information it seeks to capture has little bearing on the relationship between the job posting and uncharged conduct.8 If a court has already determined that past conduct did not rise to a level of seriousness warranting criminal punishment, then its helpfulness to a suitability determination by OMP is insignificant. Mandating an inquiry into diversionary outcomes would not yield relevant information to make an employment decision but instead introduce misleading and potentially prejudicial information about future applicants. B. The sought information in the revision to Question 9 would undermine final decisions made by prosecutors and judges. The proposed change in OF306 would second-guess prosecutors and judges who exercise discretion about what conduct must be prosecuted to secure a criminal conviction.9 There are more than 3,000 problem-solving or diversion courts that operate in the United States.10 Through these courts, judges and prosecutors may recommend a diversion from traditional prosecution for people who commit low-level, nonviolent offenses when prosecution would be “counterproductive, ineffective, or unwarranted.”11 More importantly for OPM’s consideration, diversion programs allow flexibility for people whose offenses are deemed minor enough—providing an opportunity to avoid incurring a criminal record that can negatively impact them for years to come.12 The mark Criminal-Records-in-Hiring.pdf (noting EEOC guidance on use of unconvicted conduct in hiring: “The fact that someone has been charged with a crime should not disqualify them for a job if they were not convicted.”). 7 See 5 C.F.R. §§ 731.201. 8 See, e.g., Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 353 U.S. 232, 241 (1957) (“The mere fact that a [person] has been arrested has very little, if any, probative value in showing that he has engaged in any misconduct.”); Gregory v. Litton Sys. Inc., 316 F. Supp. 401, 403 (C.D. Cal. 1970) (“[I]nformation concerning a prospective employee's record of arrests without convictions, is irrelevant to [an applicant’s] suitability or qualification for employment.”). 9 U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, SMART ON CRIME: REFORMING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 1 (2013) https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2013/08/12/smart-on-crime.pdf (As part of the Smart on Crime initiative, the Department of Justice specifically endorsed the use of specialized criminal courts: “In appropriate instances involving non-violent offenses, prosecutors ought to consider alternatives to incarceration, such as drug courts, specialty courts, or other diversion programs.”). 10 Suzanne M. Strong, et al, Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (Oct. 12, 2016), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpsc12.pdf. 11 State v. Fox, 832 N.W.2d 55, 60–61, (S.D. 2013) (“pretrial diversion or deferred prosecution is defined as ‘any voluntary option that provides alternative criminal case processing for a defendant charged with a crime and ideally results in a dismissal of the charge(s).’ … these diversion programs feature: ‘(1) uniform eligibility criteria; (2) structured delivery of services and supervision; and (3) dismissal—or its equivalent—of pending criminal charges upon successful completion of the required term and conditions of diversion.’ Unsuccessful participants are returned for prosecution.”). 12 See, Richard C. Boldt, Problem-Solving Courts, in REFORMING CRIMINAL JUSTICE 281 (2017), http://academyforjustice.org/wp- of a criminalatter and has lasting effects.13 For precisely that reason, diversion provides accountability for conduct deemed low-level enough not to warrant punishment or the burden of a lifetime of scrutiny. If OPM were to require that all future applicants provide details about participation in a diversionary program, it would nullify the effectiveness of diversion by substituting careful judgement by prosecutors and judges for aimless speculation about past conduct.14 Imposing a rule to dig through uncharged or dismissed conduct runs directly counter to the purpose of having an alternative to prosecution in the first place. In sum, changing OF306 would not provide benefit to OPM, the federal agencies, nor the countless Americans who have experienced some connection to the criminal justice system. II. Proposed changes would discourage potential applicants and limit economic opportunity for qualified individuals. It is estimated that over 70 million Americans—or 1 in 3 adults—have a record of arrest or conviction.15 For a rule change implicating such a broad portion of our workforce, understanding its potential impacts is key. Asking applicants about mere interactions with the justice system beyond their actual convictions adds an extra level of scrutiny they would not face in over a dozen states or when applying to a growing movement of private sector companies.16 Learning about applicants’ participation in diversion programs does little to promote safety. In fact, given the importance of employment to avoiding recidivism, the reduced opportunities the rule would create could make our communities more dangerous.17 Moreover, this change would reduce the quality of the federal workforce by deterring otherwise qualified applicants. We should trust our law enforcement and courts when they believe Courts.pdf (“In drug-treatment courts and many other problem-solving courts, by contrast, the stabilizing influence of judicial neutrality and formal rules of procedure are diminished precisely because the interests of the defendant are now seen as consonant with those of the state.”). providesccountability for conduct deemed low-level enough not to warrant punishment or the burden of a lifetime of scrutiny. If OPM were to require that all future applicants provide details about participation in a diversionary program, it would nullify the effectiveness of diversion by substituting careful judgement by prosecutors and judges for aimless speculation about past conduct.14 Imposing a rule to dig through uncharged or dismissed conduct runs directly counter to the purpose of having an alternative to prosecution in the first place. In sum, changing OF306 would not provide benefit to OPM, the federal agencies, nor the countless Americans who have experienced some connection to the criminal justice system. II. Proposed changes would discourage potential applicants and limit economic opportunity for qualified individuals. It is estimated that over 70 million Americans—or 1 in 3 adults—have a record of arrest or conviction.15 For a rule change implicating such a broad portion of our workforce, understanding its potential impacts is key. Asking applicants about mere interactions with the justice system beyond their actual convictions adds an extra level of scrutiny they would not face in over a dozen states or when applying to a growing movement of private sector companies.16 Learning about applicants’ participation in diversion programs does little to promote safety. In fact, given the importance of employment to avoiding recidivism, the reduced opportunities the rule would create could make our communities more dangerous.17 Moreover, this change would reduce the quality of the federal workforce by deterring otherwise qualified applicants. We should trust our law enforcement and courts when they believe Courts.pdf (“In drug-treatment courts and many other problem-solving courts, by contrast, the stabilizing influence of judicial neutrality and formal rules of procedure are diminished precisely because the interests of the defendant are now seen as consonant with those of the state.”). 13 See, e.eg., Menard v. Mitchell, 430 F.2d 486, 490 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (Even if no direct economic loss is involved, the injury to an individual’s reputation may be substantial. Economic losses themselves may be both direct and serious. Opportunities for schooling, employment, or professional licenses may be restricted or nonexistent as a consequence of the mere fact of an arrest, even if followed by acquittal or complete exoneration of the charges involved.”). 14 Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1967)(“The discretion of the Attorney General in choosing whether to prosecute or not to prosecute, or to abandon a prosecution already started, is absolute.”). 15 See Sarah K.S. Shannon et al., The Growth, Scope, and Spatial Distribution of People with Felony Records in the United States, 1948–2010, 54 DEMOGRAPHY 1795, 1806 (2017); Megan Stevenson and Sandra Mayson, Contributions: The Scale of Misdemeanor Justice, 98 B.U. L. REV. 731, 746 n.81 (2018). 16 In a dozen states (CA, MA, MI, NV, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, UT, WV, WI) employers can only inquire about criminal convictions rather than arrest history, while private companies like Google, Walmart, and Koch Industries have abandoned asking about applicants’ criminal histories in applications. 17 Jake Cronin, The Path to Successful Reentry, U. MO INST. PUB. POL’Y, Rep. 12 (2011), https://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2011/1003-prison-education-programs-reduce-inmate-prison-returnrate- mu-study-shows/ (“Employment proves to be the strongest predictor of not returning to prison that we found.”). a defendant’s conduct is minor enough to be addressed without pursuing a criminal conviction. The point of diversion programs is to provide defendants an opportunity to avoid the harmful employment consequences that a conviction record creates and a second chance to realize their full potential. The proposed rule would nullify these programs’ benefits for federal job-seekers. III. Conclusion The Trump Administration has made admirable progress advancing criminal justice reform. If fully implemented, the historic First Step Act promises to give better opportunities to current and former prisoners to successfully re-enter society and contribute to their communities. The proposed change to OF306 would directly undermine the President’s criminal justice reform agenda by stymieing re-entry efforts recently highlighted at the White House earlier this month.18 Unnecessarily expanding OF306 to ask about conduct not serious enough to warrant a criminal penalty is irrelevant to the safety concerns of the hiring process, unwisely second-guesses the more informed decisions of our justice system, and lowers the quality of the federal applicant pool by deterring applicants. In short, the proposed rule change provides almost no benefit at a heavy cost. For these reasons, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners urges the Office of Personnel Management to avoid erecting an unnecessary barrier to opportunity to over a third of American adults in seeking federal employment. Sincerely, Mark Holden Chairman | Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce Brent Gardner Chief Government Officer | Americans for Prosperity 18content/uploads/2017/10/13_Reforming-Criminal-Justice_Vol_3_Problem-Solvingof a criminal record is a serious matter and has lasting effects.13 For precisely that reason, diversion provides accountability for conduct deemed low-level enough not to warrant punishment or the burden of a lifetime of scrutiny. If OPM were to require that all future applicants provide details about participation in a diversionary program, it would nullify the effectiveness of diversion by substituting careful judgement by prosecutors and judges for aimless speculation about past conduct.14 Imposing a rule to dig through uncharged or dismissed conduct runs directly counter to the purpose of having an alternative to prosecution in the first place. In sum, changing OF306 would not provide benefit to OPM, the federal agencies, nor the countless Americans who have experienced some connection to the criminal justice system. II. Proposed changes would discourage potential applicants and limit economic opportunity for qualified individuals. It is estimated that over 70 million Americans—or 1 in 3 adults—have a record of arrest or conviction.15 For a rule change implicating such a broad portion of our workforce, understanding its potential impacts is key. Asking applicants about mere interactions with the justice system beyond their actual convictions adds an extra level of scrutiny they would not face in over a dozen states or when applying to a growing movement of private sector companies.16 Learning about applicants’ participation in diversion programs does little to promote safety. In fact, given the importance of employment to avoiding recidivism, the reduced opportunities the rule would create could make our communities more dangerous.17 Moreover, this change would reduce the quality of the federal workforce by deterring otherwise qualified applicants. We should trust our law enforcement and courts when they believe Courts.pdf (“In drug-treatment courts and many other problem-solving courts, by contrast, the stabilizing influence of judicial neutrality and formal rules of procedure are diminished precisely because the interests of the defendant are now seen as consonant with those of the state.”). 13 See, e.eg., Menard v. Mitchell, 430 F.2d 486, 490 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (Even if no direct economic loss is involved, the injury to an individual’s reputation may be substantial. Economic losses themselves may be both direct and serious. Opportunities for schooling, employment, or professional licenses may be restricted or nonexistent as a consequence of the mere fact of an arrest, even if followed by acquittal or complete exoneration of the charges involved.”). 14 Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1967)(“The discretion of the Attorney General in choosing whether to prosecute or not to prosecute, or to abandon a prosecution already started, is absolute.”). 15 See Sarah K.S. Shannon et al., The Growth, Scope, and Spatial Distribution of People with Felony Records in the United States, 1948–2010, 54 DEMOGRAPHY 1795, 1806 (2017); Megan Stevenson and Sandra Mayson, Contributions: The Scale of Misdemeanor Justice, 98 B.U. L. REV. 731, 746 n.81 (2018). 16 In a dozen states (CA, MA, MI, NV, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, UT, WV, WI) employers can only inquire about criminal convictions rather than arrest history, while private companies like Google, Walmart, and Koch Industries have abandoned asking about applicants’ criminal histories in applications. 17 Jake Cronin, The Path to Successful Reentry, U. MO INST. PUB. POL’Y, Rep. 12 (2011), https://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2011/1003-prison-education-programs-reduce-inmate-prison-returnrate- mu-study-shows/ (“Employment proves to be the strongest predictor of not returning to prison that we found.”). a defendant’s conduct is minor enough to be addressed without pursuing a criminal conviction. The point of diversion programs is to provide defendants an opportunity to avoid the harmful employment consequences that a conviction record creates and a second chance to realize their full potential. The proposed rule would nullify these programs’ benefits for federal job-seekers. III. Conclusion The Trump Administration has made admirable progress advancing criminal justice reform. If fully implemented, the historic First Step Act promises to give better opportunities to current and former prisoners to successfully re-enter society and contribute to their communities. The proposed change to OF306 would directly undermine the President’s criminal justice reform agenda by stymieing re-entry efforts recently highlighted at the White House earlier this month.18 Unnecessarily expanding OF306 to ask about conduct not serious enough to warrant a criminal penalty is irrelevant to the safety concerns of the hiring process, unwisely second-guesses the more informed decisions of our justice system, and lowers the quality of the federal applicant pool by deterring applicants. In short, the proposed rule change provides almost no benefit at a heavy cost. For these reasons, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners urges the Office of Personnel Management to avoid erecting an unnecessary barrier to opportunity to over a third of American adults in seeking federal employment. Sincerely, Mark Holden Chairman | Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce Brent Gardner Chief Government Officer | Americans for Prosperity 18 President Donald J. Trump Is Committed to Building on the Successes of the First Step Act.THE WHITE HOUSE. (Apr.1, 2019). https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-committed-buildingsuccesses- first-step-act/. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2414 | Support our elected President! AND STOP LISTENING TO LOBBYISTS! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2504 | Please write your comment here.Trump is help us build a better country | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2573 | GET WITH THE PLAN STOP being obstructionists!Please write your comment here. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2077 | Do not change this. People make mistakes. People deserve a second chance. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2606 | I think for very minor crimes like shoplifting etc., people deserve a second chance. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2538 | I believe God put President Trump in office. I feel he has done more for our country than any other President in my lifetime. I am sick and tired of the Deep State Undermining President Trump's Conservative Justice Reforms! I read the end of the story, and I know there will be a man who will make everyone think he is wonderful. Then after 3 1/2 years, all hell will break out, Praise the Lord the followers of Jesus Christ will be out of here before that happens. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2496 | Please help our president by authorizing/building the wall. Help our president so he can continue to help you. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2648 | We completely support PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JUDICIAL POSITION. He is doing a superb job. Thank You, PRESIDENT TRUMP. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2596 | Please write i wish the Democratic party would work with our president and not fight him.Democratic party is self centered and they think they are right but they are not.comment here. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2704 | Stand with President Trump and stop fighting him at every turn, President Trump is doing what is right for all Americans! We elected him and he is doing what he promised he would do! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2609 | I can only imagine how strong our country would be if Pres. Trump had the support of congress. Just look at the accomplishments he has made without them. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2714 | Stop now all the obvious obstruction undermining President Trumps conservative justice reforms, and everything else He is trying to do for this country! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2427 | We stand solidly with President Trump's and Conservative Justice Reform agenda. These reforms are long overdue and should be supported by every patriotic American. Politically motivated obstructionism is a poor way to govern our country. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2324 | Congress is a sorry mess- | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2653 | Please write your comment here.We know that the 'Resist' Campaign, lead by Hillary Clinton(*because she couldn't accept the fact that she lost her lackluster Presidential attempt..even while consorting/colluding with Ukrainian officials and creating a false anti-Trump document) The Democrats have been manufacturing false charges and obstructing anything that President Trump/Republicans have proposed ever since {They sincerely need an attitude adjustment, to say the least] | 1 | ||||
| Prince George's Peace & Justice Coalition-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-16-19; #0020 | It would be a bad idea to require applicants for federal jobs to report if they've ever been in a diversion program. Information regarding pretrial diversions short of convictions has little value. The courts and prosecutors approving such diversions already have evaluated the underlying charges as not serious enough to require further action. It follows that the federal agency resources needed to further pursue information would be poorly spent. Besides this, U.S. government policy should encourage- not discourage- criminal courts to resolve less serious charges without trial when this is acceptable to all parties. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2588 | Approve President Trump's judicial appointments. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2637 | This is not a socialist or communist country |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2273 | Isn't it about time to stop making new laws that support criminals and prohibit law enforcement from doing their job? Please support President Trumps Conservative Justice Reforms. Making law enforcement more difficult is turning our country into a 3rd world nation. | 1 | ||||
| Human Rights Campaign | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2573 | U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20415-1000 Docket ID: OPM-2019-0002 RE: Human Rights Campaign Public Comment in Response to the Proposed Submission for Revision of a Previously-Approved Information Collection: Declaration for Federal Employment, Option Form (OF) 306 To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of the Human Rights Campaign’s nearly 3 million members and supporters nationwide, I write in response to the request for public comment regarding the proposed changes to the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form 306 (OF306). As the nation’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) equality, we respectfully ask that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) withdraw revisions to Question No. 9 requiring applicants to disclose their participation in a pretrial intervention or diversionary-like program. The inclusion of these modifications creates unnecessary employment barriers for those who have come into disproportionate contact with the criminal justice system, and especially those from vulnerable populations, such as those in the LGBTQ community. We are especially concerned because such disclosures might prejudice employers against hiring workers with perceived criminal backgrounds. Members of the LGBTQ community are already at a socioeconomic disadvantage when compared to their non-LGBTQ peers. They are more likely to report a lower income, lack insurance, and face higher rates of unemployment.1 These inequities make it consistently more difficult for LGBTQ people to earn a living and care for their loved ones. 1 LGBT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA INTERACTIVE, THE WILLIAMS INSTITUTE, UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW (January 2019), https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=LGBT#about-the-data. In addition, requiring federal job applicants to disclose their involvement in diversion programs defeats the purpose of the program itself. These programs reroute low-level offenders from formal processing in the court and serve to rehabilitate them without the use of incarceration. Upon completion of the program, the participant’s charges are dismissed and they are free to engage in society without the stigma of a criminal conviction. For 48 states and the District of Columbia, diversion programs have become a staple of the criminal justice system.2 For job-seeking individuals in the LGBTQ community, disclosure of their participation in a diversion program to a potential employer could add another barrier to finding meaningful employment. Surveys have suggested that around 42% of people identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and 78% of those identifying as transgender have experienced some form of employment discrimination as a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity.3 Worse still, both LGBTQ youth and adults are overrepresented in the criminal justice system despite making up less than 5% of the overall population.4 This overrepresentation increases the odds that LGBTQ individuals will participate in a diversion program, the disclosure of which on a job application will negatively impact their employment opportunities. In light of the evidence that the LGBTQ community faces high levels of employment discrimination and is more likely to have experience with pretrial interventions and other diversionary programs, we strongly urge that any revision requiring disclosure of involvement in such programs be withdrawn. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and thank you for your fair consideration of this matter. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2713 | We need protection for whistle blowers for sure, and we need laws and regulations and rules that support due process, substantive and procedural. Please ensure that our civil rights remained protected. Thanks. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2029 | I am opposed to the change in federal job applications that would require applicants to disclose whether they had been in a diversion program. There is too much discrimination against poorer people who get involved in our justice system. |
1 | ||||
| United States Senators Richard J. Durbin, Charles E. Grassley, Cory A. Booker, and Michael S. Lee-Agency | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2355 | April 23, 2019 Margaret Weichert Acting Director U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E. Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20415 Re:Submission for Revision of a Previously Information Collection: Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306 (OMB Number: 3206-0182) Dear Acting Director Weichert: We write to oppose the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) proposal to require applicants for federal jobs and contracting work to divulge their participation in criminal diversion programs. An estimated 70 million people in the United Statesnearly one in three adultshave a prior arrest or conviction record. Research has shown that a conviction record reduces the likelihood of a job callback or offer by nearly 50 percent with such consequences felt more acutely by people of color. There is bipartisan acknowledgment that such consequences are disproportionate, unduly punitive, and counterproductive. The proposed rule would require individuals to disclose their participation in diversion programs. These could include drug courts, veterans courts, or deferred prosecution agreements. Diversion programs directly address the unjust and illogical consequences of a criminal conviction. These programs help individuals, families, and communities, often by requiring participants to complete sorely needed evidence-based drug and mental health treatment programs. There is strong, bipartisan, support for these types of interventions, as shown by the First Step Act of 2018s emphasis on helping individuals with criminal convictions successfully reenter their communities. The administration shares this goal, and recently noted the importance of breaking th[e] cycle of recidivism by . . . mitigating the collateral consequences of incarceration. OPMs proposed changewhich will no doubt exclude deserving applicants from valued federal employment opportunitiesis flatly at odds with these objectives. Nor will this change forward any legitimate agency objective, as this information is unduly prejudicial to job candidates. If prosecutors have determined that participation in a diversion program is sufficient, the federal government should not craft rules that undermine that judgment. Our nations legal and moral underpinnings provide that anyone who makes a mistake and learns from it deserves a second chance. However, a brush with the law can trigger a cascade of collateral consequences that often severely hamper an individuals ability to become a productive member of the community. People with criminal records face significant barriers to employment, housing and education. Diversion programs are a key tool to avoid these barriers and to deliver needed interventions to participants eager for help. Thousands of jurisdictions across the United States use these programs to help low-level and non-violent offenders, reduce recidivism, and increase employment. But by treating diversions like convictions, OPMs proposed change will undermine the benefits of diversion, and subvert the bipartisan consensus that it is time to prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration. Those who have accepted the consequences of their actions, and who in many cases have worked hard to complete court-mandated programming, should have the opportunity to reenter the workplace. We should be working to eliminatenot erectsuch barriers. Sincerely, RICHARD J. DURBIN United States Senator CHARLES E. GRASSLEY United States Senator CORY A. BOOKER United States Senator MICHAEL S. LEE United States Senator |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2565 | IN and stop undermining his efforts with your false accusations! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2528 | Stop the Deep State from ALL their Obstruction of ALL of Trumps agenda period!!! | 1 | ||||
| United States Department of Agriculture-Agency | FedReg, 4-24-19; #0013 | On behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture, attached are comments for the revisions to the Optional Form, OF-306. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. USDA’s Comments on the Revised Optional Form, OF 306 Overall comments: The changes being proposed provide greater clarity regarding the intent of the questions. In general, these revisions will require applicants to disclose more information than in the past, and this will assist us during suitability reviews. We especially appreciate that a list of examples will be given in question 9, which will make it more difficult for an individual to claim to have misunderstood the question. Currently, it’s not uncommon for a person to claim, “I didn’t think you needed that because it was not on the form.” The one change that will reduce the amount of information gathered, changing the traffic fine limit in the instructions, is also a positive change. With the current form, individuals disclose many minor traffic violations that do not factor into the suitability determination, and this slows down the review process. Current instructions only allow applicants to omit traffic fines of $300 or less. The proposed change to allow an individual to omit traffic fines of $1,000 or less will reduce the number of minor violations listed by applicants. Since it is a form that must be included in hire packages as well as investigation packages, make it an Standard Form, not an Optional Form. The comment that the form is optional, but the information asked is mandatory – leaving someone to format their own questions/answers – might not interpret the question the same. The timeframe an applicant must go back, should be the same amount of years for every question that requires it. Question 9 says 7 years; Question 10 says 7 years; Question 12 says 5 years. The other questions do not ask for a time frame. Either put one for each question or say, “Have you ever…” (like the SF-86 does). Eliminate the SF-85 and SF-85P and have everyone doing an investigation complete the SF-86, regardless of the level required. Rationale: Some of the items not covered on the shorter forms may help discover behavior, etc. that might otherwise go unnoticed or unreported, and could perhaps be a flag to keep certain individuals from having certain accesses, carrying weapons, etc., thus preventing tragedies later. Reference Question 11, there appears to be a typographical error in the word trial. “Are you currently under charges for any violation of law?’’ was amended to ‘‘Are you currently under charges for any violation of law, on trial or awaiting a trail on criminal charges?’’ Following are recommended questions to add to the proposed OF 306: 1. Are you now, or have you been told you will be placed, under investigation for any type of workplace conduct or behavior matter? If yes, reference item 16 to provide the date, an explanation of the problem, reason, and the employer’s name and address. 2. Are you now or have you ever, left a position after you were informed verbally or after you received a written notice or proposal that your employer was pursuing any type of disciplinary action? If yes, reference item 16 to provide the date, an explanation of the problem, reason, and the employer’s name and address. 3. Have you ever been removed, suspended, or demoted for any conduct, behavior, or performance related reason? If yes, reference item 16 to provide the date, an explanation of the problem, reason, and the employer’s name and address. 4. In the past 3-years, have you received any type of cautionary or warning letter related to your conduct or behavior in the workplace? If yes, reference item 16 to provide the date, an explanation of the problem, reason, and the employer’s name and address. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2619 | Please write your comment here. we all need to stand behind trump and support him. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2745 | It is long past time for people to stop undermining the good that our president is doing to America the greatest country ever. Please support the criminal justice reform that President Trump has chosen. We know that their are many who deserve harsh punishments, but MANY DO NOT. Please co-operate for the good of Americans. | 1 | ||||
| Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2275 | April 23, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Submission for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306 Agency/Docket Number: Notice 2019-03056; 84 Fed. Reg. 5733 Dear Ms. McLeod: The Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, at New York University School of Law is an interdisciplinary institute created to confront laws, policies, and practices that lead to the oppression and marginalization of people of color. The Center submits these comments in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s proposal to revise Question 9 on the Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306 expanding criminal disclosure requirements for individuals seeking federal employment. The Center has a particular interest in the proposed revision due to our active involvement in addressing the manifestations of the racism and bias that permeates our present-day criminal legal system. A criminal conviction has significant consequences for individuals navigating the many barriers to reentry. Meaningful employment is fundamental to successful reentry, by enabling individuals to support themselves and their families, while escaping the traps of poverty and recidivism. The requirement to disclose an individuals’ criminal record on application forms can be extremely detrimental to individuals in their attempts to secure meaningful employment. The proposed revision to Question 9 places individuals without criminal convictions in this same category, imposing “a requirement to [disclose] charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” We strongly oppose this revision and enclose our comments herewith. 1. The proposed revision to Question 9 will exacerbate existing racial disparities in reentry and employment The racism that permeates our present-day criminal legal system has deep roots that continue to taint reentry policies. As Black and Latinx individuals specifically are overrepresented in the criminal legal system as a whole, the requirement to disclose more information relating to their interaction with that system will undoubtedly have a disparate impact upon these populations.1 The stark racial disparities in reentry are exemplified by statistics that demonstrate that Black individuals with a criminal record are 40% less likely to be successful in securing job interviews when compared to White Americans with similar criminal backgrounds. 2 In addition, research has shown that employers are more likely to inquire into the criminal history of Black applicants, regardless of whether they have a criminal history or not.3 This suggests that expanding the requirements for disclosure will enhance employers’ reliance upon the faulty correlation between race and criminality. At bottom, the racial bias that continues to shape the conditions of reentry for Black and Latinx individuals will be exacerbated by the expansion of disclosure requirements. The proposed revision will contribute to the existing disadvantage faced by Black individuals and all people of color disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. 2. The proposed revisions defeat the purpose of diversion programs, creating an unfair and inaccurate presumption of criminality that places individuals at a significant disadvantage Diversion programs were designed as an alternative to incarceration, providing individuals with a chance to avoid conviction, a criminal record, and facilitate rehabilitation and reentry. Such programs vary throughout the United States and can range from medical rehabilitation in place of prison in crimes such as drunken driving, and drug crimes to cases involving veterans who may suffer from post-traumatic stress.4 1 Marina Duane et.al, CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS: IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT AND RECIDIVISM, RESEARCH REPORT, URBAN INSTITUTE, (March 2017), http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88621/criminal-background-checks-impact-on-employment-and-recidivism.pdf. 2 ACLU, SMART JUSTICE: REENTRY, [accessed April 17, 2019] https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/re-entry. 3 Kayla M. Hoskins, Race and Reentry After Incarceration, CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIAS (Feb 2019) (accessed April 17, 2019) http://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-341#acrefore-9780190264079-e-341-bibItem-0102 4 Justin George, Would Expanded Criminal Background Checks Hurt Federal Job Applicants? THE MARSHALL PROJECT, (March 5, 2019), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/03/05/would-expanded-criminal-background-checks-hurt-federal-job-applicants. These programs have been promoted as critical initiatives designed to mitigate the collateral consequences of the contact with the criminal legal system and to spare individuals of the social stigma of criminality. Yet Question 9’s inclusion of diversion programs treats participation in such programs as a signal of criminality. In this way, diversion programs are conceived as a form of punishment for something that individuals were never convicted of. As noted, a disclosed criminal record on a job application is extremely detrimental and is frequently—often falsely—associated with a risky candidate, one who may be unreliable and a hiring liability.5 Including diversion programs within this category of risk places an unfair and inaccurate burden of criminality upon the applicant and only serves to instill the stigma of criminality into the minds of potential employers. 3. The proposed changes will reduce the number of applicants to federal jobs The Office of Personnel Management claims that the revisions will “close a gap” and improve applicant accuracy. However, in practice it is highly likely that the new rule will diminish the number of applicants, as well as the potential number of employees.6 When limitations are imposed in the application process, applicants will be discouraged from applying for positions and employers will be incentivized to dismiss the applications of stigmatized potential employees. This will create further barriers for those applicants seeking to secure meaningful employment, hindering the overall success of their reentry into society. 4. The proposed changes contradict the government’s stated commitment to second chance hiring and reentry The revisions to Question 9 of the Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306 vastly expands criminal background disclosure and in doing so contradicts recent positive policy shifts towards positive reentry. With the signing of the First Step Act, House Majority Leader McCarthy stated “Yes, we believe in law, but we also believe in second chances. We also believe in the individual. And we believe it doesn’t matter where you’re born or where you come from, you have hope in this country and you have an opportunity.”7 However, the requirement to disclose information for individuals who have never been convicted of a crime flies in the face of that notion. The revisions to Question 9 do the exact opposite of this statement, by inserting a presumption of “no second chances.” 5 ANTHONY C. THOMPSON, RELEASING PRISONERS, REDEEMING COMMUNITIES: REENTRY, RACE, AND POLITICS, (NYU Press, 2008). 6 Marshall Project, supra note 4. 7 HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER MCCARTHY, Remarks by President Trump at Signing Ceremony for S. 756, the “FIRST STEP Act of 2018” and H.R. 6964, the “Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018” (Dec. 21, 2018) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-signing-ceremony-s-756-first-step-act-2018-h-r-6964-juvenile-justice-reform-act-2018/ In addition, states have made significant progress towards “ban the box” initiatives which remove criminal background questions from job applications.8 Thirty four states, the District of Columbia, and over 150 cities and counties have passed laws limiting the requirements related to criminal background questions on job applications.9 Some states such as California specifically point to the importance of ensuring that diversion programs are not encompassed within assumptions of criminality for the purposes of job applications and, accordingly, the state prohibits employers from questioning individuals about their involvement with diversion programs.10 These important steps allow individuals to pursue employment and present their suitability for an employment position without the stigma that flows from involvement with the criminal legal system. In light of the detrimental impact that these revisions will have upon individuals’ reentry opportunities, we urge the Office of Personnel Management to reject the proposed revisions to Question 9 of the Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306. We recommend that revisions instead focus upon questions that will reduce opportunities for racial bias and stigma. Reentry efforts should be focused upon supporting individuals, not creating punitive restrictions designed to thwart their success. If the Office wishes to learn more about the points raised herein, we are more than willing to provide further commentary. Thank you in advance for considering our comments. Sincerely, Anthony C. Thompson, Faculty Director Deborah N. Archer, Faculty Director Vincent M. Southerland, Executive Director Sarah L. Hamilton-Jiang, Research Scholar Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2619 | Please write your comment here. we all need to stand behind trump and support him. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2745 | It is long past time for people to stop undermining the good that our president is doing to America the greatest country ever. Please support the criminal justice reform that President Trump has chosen. We know that their are many who deserve harsh punishments, but MANY DO NOT. Please co-operate for the good of Americans. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2720 | We need the justice reforms | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2467 | We the people elected Donald Trump as our president despite the low-level and treasonous acts of the deep state, particularly the corrupt officials at FBI and DOJ. It is time to stop further undermining of his authority as president by these unelected government employees who live on our generous tax dollars paid by us, the citizens of this country. Further, as the witch-hunt set up by the crooks has found the president totally innocent and cleared of the crimes he was accused of, it is time to investigate these criminals and put them behind bars. Thanks. |
1 | ||||
| Gonzalez & Associates Homeland Security Consulting-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2254 | Dear Madam Director Weichert, We are writing regarding the Proposed Rule # 2019-03056 “Submission for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306” issued on 02/22/2019 in the Federal Registry. We strongly oppose this proposed change to information collection on prospective federal employees, and urge you and advise you against its implementation. Gonzalez and Associates Homeland Consulting Group (@gonzalezassoci2) is a domestic entity working the three pillars of Homeland Security: a) climate change (“threat multiplier for national security”1); b) criminal justice reform; and c) health care. The proposed rule 2019-03056 contradicts President Trump’s stated purpose for the “First Step Act” criminal justice reform which he said was to “giv[e] our fellow citizens [who had fallen prey to the ‘incarceration generation’] a chance at redemption” , it undermines our communities resilience, and the proposed changes do not address real risks that are more latent and potentially more harmful. 1 United States. Department of Defense . (October 13, 2014)). Hagel to Address ‘Threat Multiplier’ of Climate Change. Retrieved from https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/603440/ 84 FR 5733 - PUBLIC COMMENT GONZALEZ & ASSOCIATES HOMELAND SECURITY Document Number: 2019-03056 - Attention: Donna McLeod [email protected] 3 2 We appreciate your efforts to add clarity to form (OF) 306 . We further write to request that membership in radical nationalists and white supremacist groups3 be requested to be disclosed as a condition for employment with the federal government instead of requesting information about participation in court-approved diversionary programs for misdemeanor offenders. Participants in this type of diversionary programs are not considered to have been convicted, but by disclosing participation in these programs in an application for employment might result in an administrative conviction by the government by questioning their backgrounds and denying them employment. Historically, white Americans are more likely to participate in diversionary programs. But with the expansion of marihuana diversionary programs more and more Americans of color are taking advantage of these programs too. People of color make up a smaller percentage of the population, but are reportedly twice as likely to experience problems 2 The White House. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-committed-building-successes-first-step-act/ 3 Marshall Cohen, April 4, 2019. “FBI director says white supremacy is a 'persistent, pervasive threat' to the US CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/fbi-director-wray-white-supremacy/index.html 84 FR 5733 - PUBLIC COMMENT GONZALEZ & ASSOCIATES HOMELAND SECURITY Document Number: 2019-03056 - Attention: Donna McLeod [email protected] 4 with the law (meanwhile the carnage of the Opioid Epidemic has lead to hundreds of thousands of the Anglo Americans die prematurely, lowering for the first time their life expectancy). The National Security Strategic goal is to “help Americans remain resilient in the face of adversity”. But by requiring that Americans disclose participation in court-approved diversionary programs will tend to make Americans less, not more, resilient as they will face further hurdles to obtain gainful employment. Furthermore, with the power to set precedent in the private sector, the requirement to disclose participation in diversionary programs by the federal government will likely result in the requirement expanding to the private sector as well, further potentially limiting employment options for Americans. Forcing Americans to disclose participation in diversionary programs would be cruel and discriminatory. It would harm our resilience by denying the government of these American’s capabilities and requiring the government to replace them with foreign labor at a time when the recruiting pool for IT services continues to shrink4. 4 Lucia Mutikani, DECEMBER 10, 2018 - “U.S. job openings data points to growing worker shortage”. REUTERS AGENCY. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-jobs/u-s-job-openings-data-points-to-growing-worker-shortage-idUSKBN 1O91TZ 84 FR 5733 - PUBLIC COMMENT GONZALEZ & ASSOCIATES HOMELAND SECURITY Document Number: 2019-03056 - Attention: Donna McLeod [email protected] 5 Reports abound about background security clearance breaches and obfuscation of disclosure and transparency by the executive branch5. Changing policy for employment applicants this way will harm our morale further, as we struggle to make sense of policies and a rule of law that appear not a leveled playing field, nor equitable. The proposed verbiage change from asking if one has been ‘‘imprisoned’’ to asking whether one has ‘‘served time in jail or prison’’ would result in much improved clarity if added the words “as a result of a conviction”. America incarcerates 25% of the worlds inmates while having only 5% of the world’s population6 (with Texas - and Harris County in particular - ground zero for the ‘incarceration generation’). In Harris County jails, for example, up to 75% of current inmates have not been charged with a crime and “served time”, in pretrial detention, only for their lack of secured money bail7. By amending question #9 to read “served time in jail or prison as a result of a conviction ” ( emphasis ours) will provide much needed clarity to the form and would be more fair to people who have fallen prey of the incarceration generation in America. 5 United States. Department of Justice . (2019, March). Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf 6 Michelle Ye Hee Lee April 30, 2015 “Does the United States really have 5 percent of the world’s population and one quarter of the world’s prisoners?” WAPO. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/ 7 Maranda Lynn O’donnel v. Harris County Texas. Houston, Texas, Civil No.. H-16-1414, 2017 84 FR 5733 - PUBLIC COMMENT GONZALEZ & ASSOCIATES HOMELAND SECURITY Document Number: 2019-03056 - Attention: Donna McLeod [email protected] 6 Any American who wants to serve our government and meets the standards should be allowed to serve our country. Americans have been serving with honor and distinction for a long time without having to disclose their participation in court-approved diversionary programs on applications for employment, and you, madame secretary, as the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, should assure us that their service will not be imperiled because of our collective faults participating and aiding and abetting the incarceration generation in America. Thanks and Regards, Gonzalez & Associates Criminal Justice Strike Force |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2483 | The Justice Deartment should go after the anti American Left. No one should be above the law. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2490 | It is time for all government departments to get behind the justice reforms that President Trump has implemented instead of trying to subvert them. Failure to do so will call attention to the attempt of some unelected bureaucrats to rule instead of to serve the people. Let the president and congress do their jobs. | 1 | ||||
| Forum for Youth Investment- | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2229 | April 22, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Submitted via Regulations.gov Re: Comments to OPMs Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod, On behalf of the Forum for Youth Investment (Forum), we are writing in response to the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. The Forum is a nonprofit dedicated to changing the odds for all youth so that they are ready for college, work and life. The Forum works to achieve this goal by improving and aligning policies that affect youth, planning and partnering across boundaries for impact, and strengthening practices and programs through continuous improvement. Through our work, the Forum regularly partners with and advocates on behalf of youth who have been involved with the justice system. One of the many negative consequences of prosecuting youth as adults is that youth sentenced as adults carry their criminal record for their entire life, diminishing chances to find jobs, access decent housing, obtain students loans, and go to college, join the military, or even vote. For this reason, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Declaration for Federal Employment (OF306) because they undermine the ability of young people with an arrest or conviction record to compete fairly for employment. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like. Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. While the form instructs that answers to Question 9 should omit any violations of the law that were committed before a person's sixteenth birthday, any violation of the law committed before a person's eighteenth birthday if decided in juvenile court or under a youth offender law, or any conviction set aside under the Federal Youth Corrections Act or similar state law, this would still exclude a number of young people. For example, there are a number of states where youth under eighteen are automatically deemed to be adults in the eyes of law. Further, every state in the country has some mechanism that allows youth to be charged as adults. These laws have a disproportionate impact on minority youth. In 2014, Black youth were 14% of the youth population nationally, but 52.5% of the youth transferred to adult court by juvenile court judges, the highest percentage of Black youth transferred in nearly thirty years of data collection. These proposed changes would undermine bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the federal First Step Act, that seek to promote and reward rehabilitation and limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on the individual, their families and communities. OPMs proposed policy would also have a particularly harmful and disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in such diversion programs. These proposed changes are completely at odds with the President Trumps recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. By creating these new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining the employment prospects of people with records and others who are directly impacted by the reforms, but it is also discouraging well qualified workers from both seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in todays tight labor market. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Thaddeus Ferber Executive Vice President Forum for Youth Investment 7064 Eastern Ave NW. Washington, DC 20012 |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2405 | We must return to a conservative government focused on our constitution. Enough of this greed and self adoration. Your job must be to make our country great again and a strong faith in God who will take care of us. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2550 | It is time to stand up to the Deep State and investigate how this false Russian Collusion investigation began. As the President stated, this must never happen to another President again. Our Constitutional Rights are too fragile, otherwise, and they must be protected! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0050 | Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to Optional Form 306 (OF306). One of the changes to OF306 would require job applicants for federal jobs and federal contract employment to disclose their past completion of a diversion program. This change is counter to criminal justice research showing that people should not face extensive employment barriers because of past mistakes and is counter to the intent of diversion programs which allow people accused of minor mistakes to avoid a criminal record and the 45,000 collateral consequences that are associated with a record. First, people who have made mistakes in their past - including those who may have been convicted of a crime - deserve second chances to be successful. Meaningful employment is a key milestone, which helps people move forward in their lives. The federal government should be a model employer for second chances, and this rule would instead set a horrible precedent for private employers. Second, people who have completed a diversion program have not been convicted of a crime. In the interest of justice, courts offer diversion programs so that people are not saddled with the lifelong burden of a criminal record. This rule change would essentially undo the will of the courts by forcing people to reveal whether they've completed a diversion program. As Americans, we value hard work and strong qualifications, and believe that those qualities should allow you to advance professionally. The proposed rule conflicts with those values and will unnecessarily block the pathway to success for too many Americans, their families, and their communities. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2330 | please do away with all the democrats in utah.hang them or haual them away | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1619 | As an advocate for the health, dignity, and safety of people who use drugs, I am appalled that OPM is proposing to add a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like. People who use drugs are over-criminalized in our society, and diversionary programs are a forward-thinking solution to reduce criminalization and connect people with services when they are most in need. If a person completes a diversionary program and turns their life around to a point that they are applying for a federal job, they should not be faced with additional barriers to employment such as being required to disclose participation in such social service programs. Diversion programs have been used by the Maryland courts in sensitive and effective ways. The U.S. government policy should encourage, and not discourage, criminal courts to resolve less serious charges without trial when this is acceptable to all parties. Such a policy will avoid our recent trend towards over-criminalization and reduce criminal justice-related costs to taxpayers. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2628 | Please DO NOT tamper with President Trumps Conservative Justice reforms. We, the people, have about had enough. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-16-19; #0009 | The requirement for applicants who apply for a federal job to disclose if they have been in a diversion program - i.e., diverted from prosecution to some form of therapy or other action - seems counterproductive. The point of diversion programs is to divert those for whom incarceration or even prosecution would not be appropriate. In other words, whatever they have done, it does not rise to the level of criminal prosecution. We want to decrease unnecessary incarceration and all the attendant burdens that accompany - forever - those who have been incarcerated. We all know that having a criminal record is a real handicap when it comes to seeking employment. Why would we want to handicap even those whose potential misdeeds are so minor that they are not prosecuted. This would be an unfairly heavy yoke to carry - and so unnecessary! A real waste of our energies, our tax payer dollars and the time of federal officials who would need to monitor such applications. Please re-think this (proposed only, not implemented I hope)policy. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-16-19; #0018 | Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the prolosed regulations to 44USC350 (c) (2) that would require federal job applicants to disclose whether they have been in a diversion program. I consider this change in regs a waste of resources and time without providing useful information. This information is not required for the proper performance of agency functions aspretrial diversion info has little value as prosecutors have already evaluated the changes as not serious enough to require serious action. Federal resources would not be well used. Our goal should encourage criminal courts to resolve less serious charges without trial when it is acceptable to all parties. Do not overcriminalize. The burden on the government to follow up so as to make intelligent use of diversion answers and the effort would be far greater than the value of the charges already documented as not serious enough to warrant further action. These regs would not enhance the quality of information as it would be minimal and trivial, wasting resources following up on old info. Diversion programs are used by the court effectively. US policy should encourage criminal courts to resolve lesser charges without trial when this is acceptable to all parties. Avoid overcriminalizing and Reduce criminal justice related costs. Do not implement these changes to the regs. |
1 | ||||
| Rights for Girls-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2258 | April 22, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Comments to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod: Rights4Girls writes this letter in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, FR Doc. 2019–03056, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. Rights4Girls is a national human rights organization that advocates for the dignity and rights of young women and girls so that every girl can be safe and live a life free of violence and exploitation. We work to reform law and policies that allow women and girls to be criminalized when they are victimized and advocate for approaches that provide women and girls with safety and support. Given our expertise, we write to inform you of our concern over the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they impair the ability of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system to compete fairly for employment. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals, including many women who have been arrested for the first time or on low level offenses, away from incarceration and into community-based programs. A fundamental aspect of diversion programs is that individuals who successfully complete these programs are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. Among these individuals are victims of sex trafficking and sexual exploitation, for whom gainful employment is critical to their safety and well-being. Prostitution diversion programs were created in acknowledgement that women arrested on prostitution charges and related offenses are largely sex trafficking survivors (i.e., victims of crime) or other vulnerable women who would be better met with services and provided with opportunities to heal from their underlying trauma. These proposed changes would undermine bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the federal First Step Act, that seek to limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on the individual, their families, and communities. OPM’s proposed policy would also have a particularly harmful and disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in such diversion programs, many of whom are also survivors of violence. These proposed changes are also completely at odds with the President’s recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. By creating these new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining the employment prospects of people with records and others who are directly impacted by the reforms, but it is also discouraging well qualified workers from both seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. Respectfully, Rights4Girls Washington, DC |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2381 | Donald J Trump is our President that was chosen by the people, so stop undermining our Conservative reforms!! President Trump is doing all that the God of ours told him to do. When you undermine his leadership you go against God. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2574 | Stop RESISTING. Start Cooperating. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2418 | Please write your comment here. I urge you to get out of the way of these reforms.Please write your comment here. I urge you to get out of the way of these reforms. | 1 | ||||
| LGBTQ Task Force-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2376 | Unable to OPEN PDF. Page 56 | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2575 | A justice system based on the Constitution is important. Not a constitution bent to conform to any whim. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2302 | Please quit trying to undo the justice reform put through by President Trump. I know first hand how hard it is for someone with the stigma of a prison sentence who has paid for his crime and is simply trying to get a piece of the dream....how very hard it is for that person to get a decent paying job. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2475 | Please do your utmost to support President Trump's to reform our legal system and bring safety back to our streets. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2723 | Stop acting like a bunch of assholes and get on board with President Trump! | 1 | ||||
| JustLeadershipUSA--Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2295 | April 23, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Comments to OPMs Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod: We, the undersigned organizations - founded and led by people directly impacted by the criminal legal system - write to express our concerns about the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. Given our lived experiences with the criminal legal system, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Declaration for Federal Employment (OF306). Our organizations elevate the knowledge and experiences of those most affected by the criminal legal system. The voices of directly impacted people should be at the forefront of all reform efforts. We are leading the charge to push back against unjust policies that will harm the most underprivileged and under-resourced communities that face chronic, high unemployment rates due to decades of disinvestment. Adding this additional, unnecessary barrier to employment is cruel and will only worsen the high unemployment rates for formerly incarcerated and justice involved people. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM has expanded by adding a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like. Participation in pretrial diversion programs is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pretrial diversion programs serve as an alternative to incarceration that allow people to seek the necessary help and/or treatment they need. Diversion programs provide individuals, especially those that come from under-resourced and disinvested communities lacking access to opportunity, with an opportunity to succeed and avoid a permanent conviction on their record. This policy change undermines the purpose of these programs and further hinders employment opportunities for directly impacted people. Further limiting employment opportunities for people who already face myriad barriers to employment is cruel and will negate the criminal justice reforms authorized in the FIRST STEP Act. The proposed policy would not only undermine the employment prospects of justice involved people, but this rule further excludes them from accessing basic human needs by worsening employment barriers and limiting peoples ability to earn income. This proposed rule contradicts the bipartisan reform efforts of the FIRST STEP Act. President Trump gave us a #FIRSTSTEPAct to deny us a #SecondChance. If the President and his administration truly support the criminal justice reform policies intended to help people leaving incarceration, OPM will withdraw this proposed change to the OF306. Sincerely, Forward Justice HousingPlus JustLeadershipUSA Peer Network of New York Womens Community Justice Association |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2338 | The President was elected because the status quo had gotten very much out of hand. and was heading towards only God knows where. please back this President as he knows what he's doing. President Trump was elected and the deep state was not. He is doing the will of the American people. He is not doing the will of the democrat party. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2510 | Stop objecting to President , just because he is Trump. Remember you are accountable to God! What will you account for when you stand before God. Will He say " Enter in my good and faithful servant, or depart from me I never knew you." | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2309 | As a none elected part of our Government I pray you will do the will of the people. We elected President Trump to make changes and it sounds like your department better get with the program. Why would you want to hold the American people down? | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2529 | Please do not blacklist these people...give them job and a second chance. Thank you for your assistance. |
1 | ||||
| Legal Services for Prisoners with Children-Agency | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2256 | April 22, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod RE: Doc. Citation: 84 FR 5733; Doc. Number: 2019-03056 Comments to Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306 Dear Ms. McLeod: On behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC), we write to express our opposition to the proposed revision, 2019-03056 Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306, which would require disclosure of pretrial intervention or diversionary programs. Founded in 1978, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC) enjoys a long history advocating for the civil and human rights of people in prison, their loved ones, and the broader community. We believe that the escalation of tough-on-crime policies over the past three decades has not made us safer. We believe that in order to build truly safe and healthy communities we must ensure that all people have access to adequate housing, quality health care and education, healthy food, meaningful work, and the ability to fully participate in the democratic process, regardless of their involvement with the criminal justice system. Our salient concern is with the revision of Question 9 which would require Federal employee applicants to divulge whether they were placed in a pretrial intervention or diversionary program. We believe that such a disclosure is an inappropriate invasion of privacy that does not meaningfully contribute to a determination of if an applicant is qualified for employment. Importantly, such a disclosure would create a disparate impact on marginalized communities of color who already face many barriers and obstacles due to the structural and institutional racism in fields such as employment, education, housing, and more. As stated on the United States Department of Justice website, a pretrial diversion is an alternative to prosecution and those who successfully complete the program will not be charged, or if they were charged, will have the charges dismissed.1 This individual commits to a diversionary program with the agreement of the defense attorney, prosecutor and Judge, who all take the position that this individual should exit the criminal court with no conviction if the individual successfully completes the diversion program. Thus, a person who successfully completes a diversion program has complied with all steps necessary to redress the circumstances of the arrest. An individual’s participation in a diversionary program does not illuminate any factors or 1 https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-22000-pretrial-diversion-program 4400 Market Street Oakland, CA 94608 (415) 255-7036 considerations that are necessary for employers to determine if an applicant is suitable for employment. At LSPC, we are deeply aware of the persisting practice of employers using applicants’ convictions against the formerly incarcerated for employment. Such unjust and racialized discrimination has led to numerous grassroots campaigns such as Ban the Box. Recent legislative reforms reflect the collective sentiment that our society is moving toward one that aims to uphold equitable processes for employment. The recently enacted 2017 California Assembly Bill 1008 is one example of legislation that prevents employers from asking about a prospective employees’ convictions or conducting backgrounds checks prior to a conditional job offer. The legislation also requires that employers provide an individualized assessment of if a conviction has a direct and adverse relationship to the job and to provide all decisions in writing to an applicant. We believe it is critical that employers cease discriminatory practices based on the stigma of convictions or contact with the criminal legal system so that marginalized communities can secure employment and thrive economically. The Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306 already requires an applicant to disclose convictions, imprisonments, probations, and contact with the criminal justice system as well as other governmental agencies. The disclosure of such information is more than sufficient for a Federal employer to make a determination of if an applicant is suitable for the employment position. In addition, LSPC objects to the proposed requirement to report aliases on OF306 (Question 5) because it can cause severe unintended consequences to members of the transgender community and domestic violence survivors. Many transgender people change their name to better align with their gender, and some domestic violence survivors do so in order to protect their identities from their abusers. However, in many states, the process associated with a legal name change can be time consuming, cumbersome and costly, often exceeding $400 in court fees and other expenses. Disclosing aliases can result in re-traumatizing survivors and those in the LGBTQQ+ community. It is our position that it would be an unjust to require applicants to divulge if they had participated in a diversionary program or report aliases. This would also result in many qualified applicants who need employment to be deterred from applying due to these invasive disclosures. These reporting requirements will likely also result in greater denials of opportunities of employment to marginalized communities. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact us at (415) 625-7049. Respectfully, Dorsey E. Nunn Executive Director Judy Jun Staff Attorney- Admitted in NY |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2478 | Last year President Trump made history by passing a landmark conservative justice reform bill. Crime rates are declining and law and order is finally being restored, all thanks to President Trump's leadership. Stop the undermining of President Trump's Conservative Justice Reforms. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2342 | President Trump has made good progress with his conservative justice reforms. Please don't muck it up for petty reasons. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2588 | President Trump has made good progress with his conservative justice reforms. Please don't muck it up for petty reasons. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2471 | Why are you insisting we go to Civil war here in the US? We 'the people' vote in the man we want... We 'the people' support what he is trying to do... and you 'the deep state operatives' insist on obstructing all the good President Trump is trying to accomplish. Frankly, I am not as tolerant as he is. Get in line with the rest of America or get out of the way! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #3192 | Dear Acting Director Margaret Weichert, Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to Optional Form 306 (OF306). One of the changes to OF306 would require job applicants for federal jobs and federal contract employment to disclose their past completion of a diversion program. This change is counter to criminal justice research showing that people should not face extensive employment barriers because of past mistakes and is counter to the intent of diversion programs which allow people accused of minor mistakes to avoid a criminal record and the 45,000 collateral consequences that are associated with a record. First, people who have made mistakes in their pastincluding those who may have been convicted of a crimedeserve second chances to be successful. Meaningful employment is a key milestone, which helps people move forward in their lives. The federal government should be a model employer for second chances, and this rule would instead set a horrible precedent for private employers. Second, people who have completed a diversion program have not been convicted of a crime. In the interest of justice, courts offer diversion programs so that people are not saddled with the lifelong burden of a criminal record. This rule change would essentially undo the will of the courts by forcing people to reveal whether theyve completed a diversion program. As Americans, we value hard work and strong qualifications, and believe that those qualities should allow you to advance professionally. The proposed rule conflicts with those values and will unnecessarily block the pathway to success for too many Americans, their families, and their communities. Sincerely, Douglas Spurlin Tucson, AZ 85704 |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2450 | It is past time to go after President Trump for anything. It is now time to stand up for America. I don't care what party you belong to, it's time to be on the American Party. Let's all stand together to do what's right for us, the American People. | 1 | ||||
| Eqquality North Carolina-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2257 | April 22, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations US Office of Personnel Management 1900 E St, NW Washington, DC 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Submitted via regulations.gov RE: Comments on Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) 84 FR 5733, Doc #2019-03056 Dear Donna McLeod, Equality North Carolina writes today to comment in response to the proposed revision of the Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306, as published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2019. Equality North Carolina works to secure health, safety, and equity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) North Carolinians. We oppose the proposed changes to OF306 because they undermine the ability of applicants for federal employment or federal contracts who have an alias and/or who have an arrest or conviction history, including many transgender applicants who may have been wrongly arrested or convicted under profiling laws, to compete fairly for employment. The proposed changes would have a discriminatory effect against transgender people as well as people of color, people with a history of substance use, people with mental health disorders, survivors of intimate partner violence, and people with multiple marginalized identities, when what the federal government should be doing is affirmatively valuing and respecting these applicants. Question 5 We object to the proposed change in Question 5, which the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to expand with a requirement to report aliases. There are many reasons why people may have aliases, especially transgender people, survivors of intimate partner violence, and people with multiple intersecting marginalized identities. Many transgender people undergo court-ordered name changes in order to better align their name with their gender identity. We also know that transgender North Carolinians are disproportionately likely to be unemployed--fifteen percent in 2015 compared to a national unemployment rate of five percent at that time according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 For a potential workforce that is three times more likely to be unemployed, erecting additional barriers to employment will only exacerbate the disparity, not ease it. Additionally, some intimate partner violence 1 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey: North Carolina State Report. (2017). Securing equal rights and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer North Carolinians P.O. Box 28768 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-8768 • tel (919) 829-0343 • fax (919) 827-4573 • [email protected] • www.equalitync.org Equality North Carolina Comment, 84 FR 5733, Doc #2019-03056, page 2 survivors undergo name changes to protect their identity from their aggressor. These populations of potential applicants do not need any additional barriers to seeking employment. Question 9 We also object to the proposed change in Question 9, which OPM is proposing to expand with a “requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” As the name implies, pre-trial diversion participation is not the result of a trial and conviction, and therefore is not relevant information that an employer should be allowed to take into account. We know from survey data like the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey that law enforcement officers are likely to assume that transgender people are breaking the law by trading sex, as reported by eleven percent of respondents who interacted with law enforcement officers who knew they were transgender. 2 That figure rises to one-third (33%) for Black transgender people.3 Pre-trial diversion programs are designed to mitigate some of the harmful effects that law enforcement practices have on this marginalized community. That mitigation is undermined if those arrests still count against potential applicants. Pre-trial diversion programs such as North Carolina’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program4 serve as an alternative to prosecution and trial, and divert arrestees away from incarceration and into community-based programs. When people successfully complete these programs, which ensure that they receive case management and coordinated care for substance use, they are able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. These changes undermine bipartisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the Federal First Step Act or the North Carolina Second Chance Act, that seek to limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction history for applicants, their families, and their communities. OPM’s proposed changes would have a disproportionately harmful effect on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in diversion programs like LEAD. A director in LEAD’s Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities program, which provides substance use and mental health services to people on probation or parole and is now providing case management to diversion participants, said “It makes sense to provide people with services before they go through the court system. This way is better for the community, the taxpayers and the people who use our services.”5 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to OF306. Because these changes will undermine the employment prospects of people with criminal histories as well as workers with aliases, many of whom are members of the transgender community that we serve, we once again urge OPM not to make these expansions to required disclosures. If you have any questions about our comments and recommendations, please contact Ames Simmons at [email protected]. 2 James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). Executive Summary of the Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. 3 Id. 4 http://www.nchrc.org/lead/law-enforcement-assisted-diversion/ 5 http://www.nchrc.org/lead/press-releases/ Equality North Carolina Comment, 84 FR 5733, Doc #2019-03056, page 3 Sincerely, Ames Simmons, JD Policy Director Equality North Carolina |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2694 | Please write your comment here.Its time to help this President.He has done so much it makes you wonder what other Presidents have done. He needs your support to deal with health care, the border, drug cost.Please stop and help. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2395 | Please stop underminding the peesident its not what our fore fathers would approve the 56 men that signed the decleration of independence.im a tru blooded patriot and voter also | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2326 | When is the childish actions going to stop in the Democratic Party !! It is time to get started on real government business instead of fighting the President The democrats are definately making a fool of themselves and I wonder how much longer the knowledgeable public will put up with their immature actions . I for one am totally disgusted with their attitude! It is time to GROWUP! and act like ADULTS and take the jobs you were elected for seriously!!!!!!! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2523 | Stop persecuting our President & start working for the American people! You are OUR servant! We are not yours! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2687 | I completely trust President Trump to provide the very best person to serve in our Justice positions. I further urge you to support President Trump and make America strong and sound. Socialist liberals have no place in our government | 1 | ||||
| National Council on Crime and Delinquency-Agency | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2277 | The National Council on Crime and Delinquency is the nations oldest nonprofit criminal justice research organization. We have conducted research, technical assistance, and training in the field since 1907. We strongly recommend that proposed hiring procedures regarding individuals who have had court cases dismissed should be eliminated. These procedures contradict the express purpose of the law regarding dismissal of criminal charges and the intent of diversion programs allowing individuals an opportunity to rehabilitate without the burden of a criminal record. Empirical evidence shows that including criminal history information on a job application has a profound negative impact on the likelihood that an individual will be called in for a job interview. Studies indicate that employers are 60% more likely to offer a job interview to individuals without a criminal history than to similar applicants with a single, low level, non-violent felony conviction two or more years in the past. This proposal would add new barriers to individual- and family-sustaining employment with the likely outcome of perpetuating and exacerbating social and economic disparities across communities that are disproportionately communities of color. More people will find it difficult to support a family; poverty and lack of employment have documented, obvious ill effects on families. Communities will see an increase in the number of individuals who may have trouble finding employment and who require government resources to meet basic needs. High levels of unemployment are correlated with higher levels of crime, which negatively impacts public safety. Abundant existing research shows the correlations between unemployment, poverty, crime, poor health outcomes, and other negative impacts, all of which create higher demands on taxpayer resources. The proposed inclusion of history of diversion programs will create individual and social burdens and should be eliminated. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2423 | Please write your comment here. Stop trying to undo All the Wonderful progress That our Great President Trump has for our Great America!! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2400 | investigate,the investigators!!Build the wall!! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2323 | stand with President on Justice Reforms. | 1 | ||||
| The Leadership Conference Education Fund-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2612 | On behalf of The Leadership Conference Education Fund, an organization that builds public will for federal policies that promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, we write in response to the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. We urge the OPM to clarify certain proposed changes to OF306 to ensure that they do not impose unnecessary barriers to employment of people with arrest and conviction records; to eliminate the proposed mandate to report records related to diversion programs (Question 9); and to abandon the proposed requirement to report aliases (Question 5) because of its potential to negatively impact the transgender community and domestic violence survivors. April 23, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Comments to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod: On behalf of The Leadership Conference Education Fund, an organization that builds public will for federal policies that promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, we write in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. We urge the OPM to clarify certain proposed changes to OF306 to ensure that they do not impose unnecessary barriers to employment of people with arrest and conviction records; to eliminate the proposed mandate to report records related to diversion programs (Question 9); and to abandon the proposed requirement to report aliases (Question 5) because of its potential to negatively impact the transgender community and domestic violence survivors. We strongly oppose the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they undermine the ability of people with an arrest or conviction record to compete fairly for employment, while also discriminating against people of color, transgender people, people with a history of substance use and/or mental health disorders, and other communities who should be affirmatively valued and respected in the hiring process. Currently, an estimated 70 million adults – almost one in three adults – have arrests or convictions that will show up on routine background checks.1 Securing and holding employment is imperative to successful re-entry, but qualified job-seeking people with arrest or conviction histories struggle against immense odds to secure employment. The federal government should not be creating additional barriers to employment by implementing the proposed changes to OF306. Our major concern with the proposed changes to OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including 1 National Employment Law Project. Fair Chance Licensing Reform: Opening Pathways for People with Records to Join Licensed Professions. Nov. 2018, at page 31. https://s27147.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/FairChanceLicensingv3- 2018.pdf April 23, 2019 Page 2 of 3 many people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. The example of C.L. is instructive. Ten years ago, C.L. was charged with nearly a dozen crimes relating to theft and forgery. She had never been charged with any crimes before, and navigating the legal system was overwhelming for her. While the majority of the charges were withdrawn and dismissed, she decided to participate in a diversion program with the understanding that the remaining charges against her would then be eligible for expungement. She was able to complete 16 hours of community service and other program requirements, and now works in traffic planning. C.L. has not been charged with so much as a speeding ticket since then. The proposed changes undermine bipartisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the federal First Step Act, which seek to promote and reward rehabilitation and limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on the individual, their families and communities. OPM’s proposed policy would also have a particularly harmful and disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in such diversion programs. These proposed changes are completely at odds with President Trump’s recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, which urges the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. Further, OPM should clarify proposed changes to Question 9 to ensure they do not impose unnecessary barriers to employment. The proposed expanded language of “any crime” does not make clear whether infractions like common traffic offenses are to be included or excluded in reporting requirements. OPM should clarify that the requirement to report “any crime” does not include infractions. It has been proven all across the country that African Americans are much more likely than white people to be arrested for low-level offenses. Many of these individuals may have been quick to plead guilty in order to exit the process as quickly as possible. Because of this disproportionate impact, infractions, violations, and summary offenses should not be considered in employment decisions. Accordingly, we urge OPM to clarify that OF306 does not require the collection of information on infractions. Finally, we object to the proposed requirement to report aliases on OF306 (Question 5) because it can cause severe unintended consequences to members of the transgender community and domestic violence survivors. Many transgender people change their name to better align with their gender, and some domestic violence survivors do so in order to protect their identities from their abusers. However, in many states, the process associated with a legal name change can be time consuming, cumbersome and costly, often exceeding $400 in court fees and other expenses. These legal and financial barriers often prevent these individuals from formalizing their name change through the necessary court process. Thus, we urge OPM to completely abandon Question 5. The federal government should do everything in its power to be a model employer by creating more opportunities for individuals to experience upward mobility through employment and diversifying the workforce. Instead, by creating these and other new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining the employment prospects of people with records and others who are directly impacted by April 23, 2019 Page 3 of 3 the reforms, but it is also discouraging well-qualified workers from both seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Sakira Cook, Director, Justice Reform Program at (202) 263-2894 or [email protected]. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Vanita Gupta President & CEO The Leadership Conference Education Fund |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2505 | Its time the partisan bs stop. Donald Trump will be a two term president dispite your failure to do your job. Failure to do your job WILL result in your replacement with someone who will get it done. | 1 | ||||
| Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice at Harvard Law School-0401 | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0401 | On behalf of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice at Harvard Law School, I write in opposition to amending question 9 in the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306 by asking applicants to federal and federal contract employment if they have been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed. The addition of this question would perpetuate a long, shameful history of discriminatory hiring practices. This question would inevitably have a racially disparate effect given the tremendous racial disparities in the United States criminal legal system. Look no further than Radley Balko's recent compilation of studies in the Washington Post. Further, the question flouts the protection a diversion program is designed to provide: no criminal history. One of the core benefits of diversion is the opportunity to not have any negative finding appear on a juvenile or criminal record. Asking job applicants or prospective contractees to disclose criminal allegations that did not result in a conviction has no place in any hiring process. If the criminal legal system determined the person did not legally commit a crime, the Office of Personnel Management has no business making any further inquiries. Indeed, the way the question is worded - requiring disclosure of any judge or court specified conditions before a criminal charge has been dismissed - may reach millions of quotidian misdemeanor court proceedings. The sweep of our misdemeanor system in the United States is enormous. Look at the recent books by Alexandra Natapoff "Punishment without Crime," and Issa Kohler-Hausmann "Misdemeanorland." For example, here in Massachusetts, the state prosecutes more than 85,000 criminal driving cases every year: charges like a marked lanes violation, driving on a suspended license, failure to stop. Often these cases are disposed of through a court imposed condition: show your license or pay a small fee and the case is dismissed. Suddenly the tens of thousands of people prosecuted for this charge in Massachusetts every year would be required to disclose those prior engagements with the criminal legal system if applying for federal employment. Especially as local law enforcement and judicial actors move to reform the overly punitive system of mass incarceration, in part through the design and implementation of more diversion programs, a question like this is an outmoded call from an antiquated tough-on-crime era. We are all better off when diversion programs are allowed to actually prevent the negative consequences of a criminal conviction. Diversionary programs are an important tool in upholding public safety while also promoting healing, repairing harm, and fostering both individual and community well-being. We oppose limiting the employment opportunities of individuals who successfully complete diversionary programs or comply with court-ordered conditions and who are therefore entitled to freedom from the permanent stain of a conviction on their record. The proposed question's attempt to skirt that legal reality is shameful and insupportable. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2560 | Please write your comment here. It's time for the fourth branch of Government which is the deep state to come to an end. Patriotic Americas who love Liberty and the rule of law must stand for conservative Justices who in body the Founding fathers principles of Republicanism. We elected President Trump legitimately for this purpose to end the sure curruption in Washington DC. Stand up America & take your country back! Support article five convention of states! MAGA! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2545 | Send the traitors to Guantanamo and let President Trump make America great again. Better yet stand them up in front of a firing squad. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2028 | As a Maryland resident, I oppose adding a question about a history of diversion to the application for federal employment. A proposed change in federal regulations would require applicants for federal jobs to disclose whether they ever have been in a "diversion" programwhether or not any conviction resulted from the charges. Diversion programs have been used by the Maryland courts in sensitive and effective ways. The U.S. government policy should encourage, and not discourage, criminal courts to resolve less serious charges without trial when this is acceptable to all parties. Margaret Easter Sandy Spring MD |
1 | ||||
| American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees-Union | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0937 | Margaret Weichert Acting Director U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 RE: OPM-2019-0002, "Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Declaration for Federal Employment" Dear Ms. Weichert: The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) appreciates the opportunity to comment on changes to the "Declaration for Federal Employment" (Optional Form 306) proposed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in OPM-2009-0002, Federal Register Number 2019-03056, February 22, 2019. AFSCME is the nation's largest public services union with more than 1.6 million working and retired members. AFSCME members — nurses, corrections officers, social workers, bus drivers, sanitation workers and more provide the vital services that make America happen. AFSCME advocates for excellence in public service and prosperity and opportunity for all working families. Therefore, AFSCME opposes changes to 0F306 that would require disclosure of participation in diversionary programs. In the interest of justice, courts offer diversion progams so that people are not saddled with the lifelong burden of a criminal record. Pretrial diversion programs have rigorous requirements, and people who successfully complete them should not be punished in the employment arena. By creating new criminal history reporting requirements, OPM would not only undermine the employment prospects of applicants with records, but also discourage qualified workers from seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in today's tight labor market. As OPM explained in the preamble to previous "ban the box" regulations, inquiries into an individual's record "could have the effect of discouraging motivated, well-qualified individuals from applying for a Federal job because they have an arrest record, when the arrest did not result in a conviction or when, following a conviction, they have fully complied with the penalty and have been rehabilitated in the eyes of the law," 81 Fed. Reg. at 86555. John P. Westmoreland South St, Pool, MN American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-ClO 0410#'2' TEL (202) 429-1000 FAX (202) 429-f 293 TDD (202) 659-0446 WEB www.afstme.org 1625 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-5687 #310aill In addition, the proposed changes to 0F306 implicate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because people of color and other protected groups are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. As the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explained in its 2012 guidance on the use of arrest and conviction information, "[w]ith respect to criminal records, there is Title VII disparate impact liability where the evidence shows that a covered employer's criminal record screening policy or practice disproportionately screens out a Title VII-protected group and the employer does not demonstrate that the policy or practice is job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity," Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, April 25, 2012. OPM expects more than 300,000 people a year to fill out 0F306, thus the proposed changes will impact many people seeking employment. In 2019 and 2020, those numbers are likely to be even higher as the Census Bureau conducts its hiring for the decennial Census. With the U.S. unemployment rate near its lowest point in decades, it is critical that OPM not create another barrier to hiring well-qualified candidates. The proposed changes would unnecessarily block the pathway to success for too many Americans and their families. People who have made mistakes, including those who may have been convicted of a crime, deserve second chances to be successful. Meaningful employment is a key milestone in helping people move forward in their lives. The federal government should be a model employer, and this rule would instead set a poor example for other employers. Sincerely, Steven Kreis rg Director of Research and Collective Bargaining Services |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2372 | So tired of you going against our President , All you are showing us Americans is we can't trust you everything President Trump is trying to do you undermine him in one way or another anything to go against him. And us Americans see what you are doing. You are not for what is right I see that . I am with our President 100% | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2083 | https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-03056/p-23 This comment is in response to the proposed change to question 9, a link for which is found above. The original question 9 only asked about actual convictions, as well as terms of imprisonment, probation, or parole. The proposed amendment to question 9 will now ask not only about convictions but about any time an individual has "[b]een subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed." This is an unnecessarily broad and intrusive request. It would require people who may already have had their criminal charges dismissed and criminal records expunged to disclose derogatory information about themselves that would not otherwise appear in a background check. Even more concerning, it would force people who have never even pled guilty to a crime to disclose that they had been charged with a crime, even if the charges were dropped after they satisfied court-imposed conditions for dismissal of the charges. These are people who have never lost the judicial presumption of innocence, some of whom may also have had their records expunged, yet they would be forced to disclose the charges themselves, no matter how baseless they might have been. This will have a severe chilling effect on applicants who have experienced such unfortunate occurrences, many of whom would be valuable public servants. The government already has a crisis in its ability to attract and retain talent; this would only exacerbate that crisis. I strongly urge the Personnel Management Office to reject the proposed change to question 9 and retain the currently-existing text of question 9. Alternatively, if the question is changed at all, I recommend that the new question 9 specify that disclosure is only required if the person has in fact pled guilty to a crime, even if adjudication or sentence was deferred pending resolution of court-imposed conditions. In other words, a deferred prosecution agreement, which never results in a guilty plea, should not need to be reported in response to this question. Even the broadest definition of "convicted" that one might find in the U.S. Code, 42 U.S.C. 1320a7(i) does not include deferred prosecution agreements within its ambit. Requiring disclosure in such circumstances would, at minimum, puncture the presumption of innocence by allowing federal hiring authorities to deny employment to individuals who merely have been accused of crimes, which violates principles of equity and fundamental fairness. I strongly urge the Personnel Management Office not to take such a radical and unsupportable step. |
1 | ||||
| Maryland Office of the Public Defender-Agency | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2421 | OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER ADMINISTRATION WILLIAM DONALD SCHAEFER TOWER 6 SAINT PAUL STREET, SUITE 1400 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 Ph. (410) 767-8460 Fax (410) 333-8496 Toll Free: 1 (877) 430-5187 PAUL B. DeWOLFE PUBLIC DEFENDER BECKY FELDMAN DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER Maryland Relay – 711 or 1-800-735-2258 for callers outside the State of Maryland April 23, 2019 Charles S. Phalen, Jr. Director National Background Investigations Bureau U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20415 Via Regulations.gov RE: Proposed Regulation OPM-2019-0002-0001. Dear Mr. Phalen, On behalf of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, I write to urge you to reject the proposed regulation that would require candidates for federal or federal contract employment to disclose whether they had participated in a pretrial diversion or intervention program. The very intent of these programs is to provide “second chances” to individuals who would otherwise be denied opportunities because of a criminal conviction. This regulation, if adopted, will impose the collateral consequences of a conviction on individuals who were identified – by law enforcement, prosecutors, and/or the judiciary -- as appropriate to not suffer those consequences. The regulation will also create confusion with regard to the impact of an expungement. Problem solving courts and other diversion efforts that take place post-charge often provide for expungement of those charges. Expungements serve as an incentive to complete the program and further the goals of the program to encourage a law-abiding, financially independent life. This regulation will contradict federal and state laws that do not require disclosure of expunged cases. In Maryland, completing a diversion programs is not easy. For example, drug courts generally require extensive monitoring (often for longer periods than the person likely would have served any sentence), frequent drug tests, juggling numerous appointments, and fulfilling requirements related to treatment, employment and any other identified goals. Graduation is rightly celebrated and the expungement of charges helps further the likelihood of independent living without recidivism. This regulation would have a significant impact on Maryland, as our state has one of the highest rates of federal employment and the federal government is one of the state’s largest employers. It would be a disservice both to the federal labor force and to the thousands of qualified, capable Marylanders who were selected and successfully completed a diversion program to then denied work due to the initial charge. For these reasons, I urge that these provisions be removed from any finalized regulations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul DeWolfe Maryland Public Defender |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2548 | The President is trying to give people who made a mistake in their judgement another chance at gainful employment. DO NOT BLOCK HIS EFFORTS! We have a commercial prison system in place that wants more and more people in their cells for business reasons. Do Not Feed Their System! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2361 | We need unity to make this thing work so please stop working against OUR president and help him be a success for the sake of We the people since divided we fall ! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2299 | Do not allow this to be dismantled! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2305 | Stop trying to undo the Presidents justice reforms. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2349 | Let this awesome man do his work for the American people. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2341 | Please work with the Administration that we the people voted for. Please help the Reforms made, work to help our Government work better with less red tape. A well oiled machine. Team work. Thank you. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2693 | If you had ever made a mistake, wishing you could take it back, wishing you were given a second chance then you may understand that there are men and women who made a mistake, who has deeply regretted their actions. Well now you can join many who truly wish to have Justice Reforms which give people that 2nd chance...won't you join them? | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2431 | Keep hands off Trump's Justice reform, it's long overdue. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2325 | Support and actively work to develop President Trump's justice reforms. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1748 | Please do not take this freedom away | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2739 | Make Justice Reform great again and help Americans start a new life. |
1 | ||||
| Law Enforcement Action Partnership-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2251 | Agency : Office of Personnel Management Docket Number : OPM_FRDOC_0001 Title : Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Declaration for Federal Employment As current and former law enforcement and criminal justice professionals, we write in opposition to the proposed changes to Question 9 in the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306. The amended Question 9 would ask people applying for federal and federal contract employment if they have “been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed.” This language will undermine our diversion programs, which promise that an individual who completes the program will not have a case on their record. This promise is key to engaging individuals to enroll in and successfully complete our programs. This language would tie our hands so that we can no longer truly divert people from having a permanent record. The federal government recognizes April as Second Chance Month because employment is crucial to helping individuals find a positive path forward. We all lose when unnecessary obstacles prevent people from finding work. Police, prosecutors, and judges like us across the country are creating new diversion programs every day because these programs deal with the root issues leading to criminal behavior, such as finding employment and accessing treatment. We have seen our programs help individuals successfully stop reoffending, making our communities safer. The proposed new language in OF 306 would directly counteract our efforts to improve public safety. There is no public safety justification for requiring applicants to disclose participation in a diversion program. These programs are for people who commit low-level offenses and do not pose a significant public safety risk. Limiting their employment opportunities will not prevent crime; in fact, it will ensure they have fewer ways to re-enter society as productive individuals. We look to the federal government to support successful state and local programs. We do not look to the federal government for unprecedented rule changes that weaken some of our agencies’ strongest crime prevention tools. Respectfully, Chief Mike Butler Longmont Public Safety Department, CO Kim Cheney Former Attorney General State of Vermont Chief Brendan Cox (Ret.) Albany Police Department, NY Chief John Dixon (Ret.) Petersburg Police Department, VA Chief Robert J. Hoffman (Ret.) Plainfield Police Department, CT Chief Chris Magnus Tucson Police Department, AZ Sheriff Jim Manfre (Ret.) Flagler County, FL Chief Daniel Meloy (Ret.) Colerain Township Police Department, OH Bill Nettles Former U.S. Attorney District of South Carolina Chief Jeffrey Smythe Burlington Police Department, NC Chief Norm Stamper (Ret.) Seattle Police Department, WA Chief Michael W. Tupper Marshalltown Police Department, IA Chief Peter Volkmann Chatham Police Department, NY James Anthony Former Prosecutor Neighborhood Law Corps, City of Oakland Chiraag Bains Former Senior Counsel Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Department of Justice Tom Barham Former Lieutenant Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, CA Assistant Chief John Bennett (Ret.) Tampa Police Department, FL Det. Justin Boardman (Fmr.) West Valley City Police Department, UT Officer Lori Chassee (Ret.) DuPage County Police Department, IL Michael Cindrich Former Prosecutor County of San Diego, CA Officer Gnatee Doe Daytona Beach Police Department, FL Deputy Chief Stephen Downing (Ret.) Los Angeles Police Department, CA Deputy Sheriff Jay Fleming (Fmr.) Park County, MT Officer David Franco (Ret.) Chicago Police Department, IL Major Neill Franklin (Ret.) Maryland State Police Inge Fryklund Former Assistant State's Attorney Cook County, IL Officer Brian Gaughan (Ret.) Iowa and Illinois Police Lt. Diane Goldstein (Ret.) Redondo Beach Police Department, CA Judge James P. Gray (Ret.) Superior Court of California Capt. William Halvosa (Ret.) Gainesville Police Department, FL Maj. Mike Hilliard (Ret.) Baltimore Police Department, MD Tim Hitt Former Police Corporal Monroe Police Department, LA Officer Kyle Kazan (Ret.) Torrance Police Department, CA Lucy Lang Assistant District Attorney (Fmr.) Manhattan District Attorney's Office, NY Special Sheriff David Lanoie (Ret.) Greenfield, MA Jake Lilly Assistant District Attorney Fifth Judicial District of Colorado Capt. Leigh Maddox (Ret.) Maryland State Police Yvette McDowell Assistant City Prosecutor (Ret.) Pasadena, CA Detective Nick Morrow (Fmr.) Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, CA Lt. Joanne Naughton (Ret.) New York Police Department, NY Det. Sgt. J. Gary Nelson (Ret.) Scottsdale Police Department, AZ Deputy Inspector Corey Pegues (Ret.) New York Police Department, NY Capt. Howard Rahtz (Ret.) Cincinnati Police Department, OH Detective Debbie Ramsey (Ret.) Baltimore Police Department, MD Judge Ronald Reinstein (Ret.) Superior Court Criminal Judge Maricopa County, AZ Lt. Col. Arthur Rizer (Ret.) Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of California Preston Shipp Former Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee Chief of Detectives Quovella Spruill (Ret.) Essex County Prosecutor's Office, NJ Deputy Sheriff Paul Steigleder (Ret.) Clackamas County Sheriff's Office, OR Silvestre Tanenbaum Former Patrol Officer Carrollton Police Department, TX Sgt. Carl Tennenbaum (Ret.) San Francisco Police Department, CA Allison Watson Former Assistant District Attorney 13th Judicial District of Tennessee |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2432 | I am in favor of the Justices President trump has appointed. Please confirm his appointees now! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2617 | I STAND WITH TRUMP ON JUSTICE REFORM! I ENCOURAGE A COMPLETE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW AND WILL VOTE AGAINST ANYONE, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, WHO IMPEDES SAID PASSAGE. FURTHER, I WILL ENCOURAGE EVERYONE ELSE TO DO THE SAME! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2429 | leave us alone | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2486 | Stop these ridiculous COMMUNIST agendas of yours . Your party is always saying you want to help someone well here's your chance to do something GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !! Stop... |
1 | ||||
| National Center for Transgender Equality-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2294 | Conclusion By creating these and other new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining equal opportunity and criminal justice reform, but is also discouraging well-qualified workers from seeking employment with the federal government or as federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. We urge OPM not to adopt these unnecessary and harmful changes. |
April 23, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Submission for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306 Dear Ms. McLeod, NCTE submits the following comments in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed changes (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306. Founded in 2003, the National Center for Transgender Equality is dedicated to improving the lives of transgender people and their families through public policy and public education. NCTE has worked with policymakers and advocates at the national, state, and local levels to implement effective policies in employment and numerous other areas, including working on many of the 21 state laws (as well as laws in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) and hundreds of local laws providing similar explicit protections. NCTE has assisted numerous federal agencies in developing workplace training and policies. In 2015, NCTE conducted the U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS), a comprehensive survey of nearly 28,000 transgender adults in all every state and U.S. territories and military bases overseas, which provides evidence of the need for the protections of the Equality Act. The USTS found widespread pervasive discrimination against transgender people in employment, housing, education, health care, government services, and other public accommodations. This discrimination contributes to disproportionate poverty, economic and housing insecurity, health disparities, and violent victimization among transgender people, with particularly severe effects among transgender people of color and transgender people with disabilities. Given NCTE’s experience and expertise in the experiences of transgender employees in the federal, state, and private sectors, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they would create needless barriers to employment to countless transgender people and other applicants. NCTE Opposes Expanding Question 5 Our first major concern relates to the additional examples suggested for Question 5. NCTE strongly objects to the proposed requirement to report “former names” and “aliases” on OF306 (Question 5) because it can cause severe unintended consequences for transgender workers and domestic violence Page 2 survivors. Many transgender people change their name to better align with their gender. Some domestic violence survivors do so in order to protect their identities from their abusers. Forcing disclosure of these all former names on the OF 306 is unnecessary and would compromise personal privacy and open applicants to discrimination. For transgender workers, disclosing a prior name is often tantamount to disclosing a legally protected, non-merit characteristic, namely their transgender status.1 Perhaps the seriousness of the situation can be best understood by comparison; if the OF306 form required disclosure of a person’s disability or pregnancy status, certainly we would be worried that an employer could improperly take that information into account in deciding whether to continue the hiring process and/or terminate the employee. Transgender workers have frequently faced termination or the withdrawal of job offers once an employer learned of their transgender status.2 In the 2015 US Transgender Survey, one in six (16%) respondents who had ever been employed—or 13% of all respondents in the sample—reported losing a job at some point because of being transgender.3 In addition to revealing a protected characteristic that is frequently cause for hiring discrimination, sharing a former name can be deeply embarrassing in itself for transgender workers, and can be a potent weapon for workplace harassment.4 Mandatory collection of this information, particularly when it passes through an employer, also raises significant statutory and constitutional privacy concerns.5 For these reasons, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which previously included on its Form I-9 a broad request for “Other Names Used,” narrowed this data field in 2016 to “Other Last Names Used.” USCIS stated at the time: “The change was made to avoid possible discrimination issues and to protect the privacy of transgender and other individuals who have changed their first names. USCIS believes that the change from ‘Other Names Used’ to ‘Other Last Names Used’ strikes an effective balance of collecting information that may be useful and necessary to clarify document or identity information while still protecting the privacy of an employee.”6 Given the above concerns, NCTE recommends that OPM not add additional examples to Question 5. OPM should instead consider narrowing the current Question 5. 1 See, e.g., Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Group, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 653, 659–661 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (holding job applicants have no duty to disclose transgender status or birth sex and failure to disclose does not constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive for adverse employment action); Complainant v. Shinseki, EEOC App. No. 0120133123 (2014) (disclosing employee’s transgender status by refusing to change his name in agency computer system may constitute part of a pattern of discrimination); D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 4, § 806 (adverse action based on failure to disclose a prior change of name or gender transition may constitute gender identity discrimination absent a reasonable business purpose). 2 See, e.g., Macy v. Holder, EEOC App. No. 0120120821 (2012) (employer withdrew offer upon learning employee was transgender); Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293, 306-08 (D.D.C. 2008) (same); Lopez, 542 F. Supp. 2d (same). 3 James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. 4 Lusardi v. McHugh, E.E.O.C. App. No. 0120133395 (2015) (holding persistent use of a transgender employee’s former name to ridicule and embarrass them may constitute gender-based harassment under Title VII); Jameson v. U.S. Postal Serv., E.E.O.C. App. No. 0120130992 (2013) (same). 5 See, e.g., Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that individuals have a constitutional right to privacy concerning transgender status); 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1) (requiring that agencies collect and maintain only information “relevant and necessary” to accomplish purposes required by law). 6 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Appendix to Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9, Supporting Statement (Collection Number 1615-0047) (Mar. 28, 2016). Page 3 NCTE Opposes Expanding Question 9 Our second major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. The proposed changes thus undermine bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the recently-passed First Step Act, that seek to promote and reward rehabilitation and limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on individuals, their families and communities. OPM’s proposed policy would also have a particularly harmful and disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in such diversion programs. These proposed changes are completely at odds with President Trump’s recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. These changes would also have disproportionate impacts on racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as LGBTQ people, all of whom face disproportionate rates of criminal justice involvement.7 For all these reasons, and in the absence of any demonstrated need for this change, we strongly oppose this change to Question 9 and urge OPM not to adopt it. Conclusion By creating these and other new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining equal opportunity and criminal justice reform, but is also discouraging well-qualified workers from seeking employment with the federal government or as federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. We urge OPM not to adopt these unnecessary and harmful changes. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact NCTE Director of Policy, Harper Jean Tobin, at [email protected] or (202) 804-6047 with any questions regarding these comments. |
1 | |||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2578 | Support the president's conservative justice reforms. Scrap the proposed rule which would harm millions that are trying to turn their lives around. |
1 | ||||
| The Law Office of R. Tadd Pinkston LLC-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2221 | I am a solo practitioner who often works with defendants who have committed their first offense and are placed in a pretrial diversion program. I write solely to oppose the proposed changes to Question 9. The proposal claims that allowing these diversion participants to avoid alerting employers to their diversion participation is a "gap." Rather, it is quite the opposite, one of the goals of diversion is for people to say that they were never convicted of a crime and avoid any secondary consequences of a conviction. Diversion programs vary from court to court (at least in Ohio). In some courts I practice in defendants do not need to change their plea to be placed into a diversion program, other mandate a change of plea. Folks who "want to just get it over with" will oftentimes not take their case to trial in order to take advantage of the diversion program's guarantees. This proposal walks back some of those guarantees. I fear this proposal may crowd court dockets as fewer defendants opt to participate in diversion. In short, I believe that questioning folks on whether they have been through a diversion program defeats the purpose of such programs and will harm both applicants and those who seek to hire folks. Applicants will have a harder time finding work and contractors will have fewer people to choose from. Thank you for your time, |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2593 | Support President Trump's Conservative Justice reforms |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2676 | Support Trump & save the nation or get out of office & get a job | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2624 | PleLeave President Trump's Conservative Justice Reforms alone! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2655 | It is way past time for Washington, DC politicians to behave in the manner of decent and caring humans and stop the rotten habits that destroy common sense and common decency. You are there to represent We the People, NOT your wallet and personal activities that have nothing to do with Constitutional politics. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2482 | Good Morning Leaders, You are charged with the responsibility of keeping America safe for all of our people. Federal Government has the primary duty of protecting us from enemies Foreign & Domestic. President Trump has responded with Justice Reforms that we need - NOW!!! not later, stop the crime. Enforce the simple laws, don't protect the criminal. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2634 | The Republicans had better start supporting Trump or they will never be elected for anything. He is doing what we elected him for and the Democrats and Rinos do not represent what is best for the country. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2507 | I'm definitely for Trump! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2520 | I think the powers that be could better serve the American people by making sure that only citizens or legal immigrants are eligible for employment, rather than denying those who have participated in diversionary programs a right to truly amend their behavior and become productive members of society. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2534 | get behind Our President or we will vote you out!!! | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2684 | this bs needs to stop immediately. If they don't support President Trump then they don't support America. I'm sick of these liberal sacks of shit | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2672 | President | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2595 | You people are hired to support our duly elected President Donald J. Trump. DO THE JOB YOU ARE HIRED TO DO! SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP! |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2607 | Please back President Trumps conservative justice reforms. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2712 | President Trump is doing everything in his power to make America Great Again. Would you please help him, and the entire nation to STOP THE DESTRUCTIVE DEEP STATE. I am convinced that OBAMA is the ring leader of the DEEP STATE, and he needs to be locked up for crimes against The USA. Will you please help THE USA get back on an even keel? Thank You. Loren from Mankato, MN. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2701 | Please stand up for the rule of law in our country and not emotion. We are repairing the justice system please Do not add regulations that undermine that. More regulation adds complication. Your job can be valuable by supporting simplicity. It is not just valuable when you add things to be productive. We support you for following the reforms. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2627 | It is time to stop these unelected officials and shrink government and promote freedom. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2389 | Please stop being bratty children & do something good for America & the people. Your not going to get president Trump out of office, so get to work & do what your being paid for. Im tired of your temper tantrums because you didnt get your way in the 2016 election | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2394 | It's time to do whats right for the country and stand by president Trump's justice reform. |
1 | ||||
| Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana-Agency | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1984 | April 19, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Opposition to Proposed Changes to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form Dear Ms. McLeod: We are writing in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. Our organization, the Justice and Accountability Center of Louisiana, provides civil legal services to currently and formerly incarcerated people and seeks to reduce or eliminate the collateral consequences of incarceration that hinder successful re-entry. Given our experience and expertise, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they undermine the ability of people with an arrest or conviction record to compete fairly for employment. We know that opportunities to obtain and maintain stable employment are one of the key factors in reducing recidivism and therefore increasing public safety. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of a conviction record. For example, a participant in one of our regular expungement clinics was placed in a pre-trial diversion program after an arrest for a drug possession charge. Her successful completion of diversion meant that all charges were dismissed by the district attorney. This allowed her to not disclose her record or criminal information on school admission forms or job applications as she was never convicted of a crime. When she came to us she was awaiting graduation from a nursing Page 2 of 2 RE: OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CHANGES TO OPM’S DECLARATION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT FORM The Justice and Accountability Center of Louisiana 4035 Washington Avenue, Suite 203, New Orleans, Louisiana 70125 www.JACLouisiana.org program and was preparing for licensure by the state. Diversion allowed her to continue her educational and professional development without the stigma of a criminal conviction. The proposed changes thus undermine bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the federal First Step Act, that seek to promote and reward rehabilitation and limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on the individual, their families, and communities. OPM’s proposed policy would also have a particularly harmful and disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in such diversion programs. These proposed changes are completely at odds with President Trump’s recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. By creating these and other new reporting requirements, OPM will unnecessarily increase the amount of criminal history and background information that prospective workers have to disclose. This will not only undermine the employment prospects of people with records and others who are directly impacted by the reforms, but it will also exclude and discourage well-qualified workers from both seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. We ask that you do not make the proposed changes to the OF306. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Vanessa Spinazola Executive Director |
1 | ||||
| A Bridge Forward LLC-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1952 | In recent years, it has become abundantly clear that having a criminal background can create life-long impediments to employment, professional/occupational licensing, housing, and education. In response to this realization, an increasing number of states have created more deferred sentencing options. These deferred prosecutions tend to benefit: youthful offenders, first-time offenders, defendants dealing with mental health or substance abuse issues. The overwhelming majority of people who get caught up in the criminal justice system do not go on to become career criminals. Most offenders age out of the system -- brains finally fully mature, seek treatment to overcome mental health and substance abuse challenges. This proposed change in OF 306 would be a step backwards, not forward, going against the current trend to avoid criminalizing a significant portion of the U.S. population that will not re-offend. Everyday in courtrooms defendants are pressured into pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit. Some of the offenses are minor, some not. Roughly 95% of people plead guilty. Sometimes, pleading guilty to a crime you did not commit is the cheapest way to get out of jail. Many defendants are unable to post bond. If you are employed and can't post bond, guess what, you lose your job. Because most job offers today are contingent upon passing a criminal background check (roughly 93% of employers routinely perform background checks before hiring a new employee or even promoting an existing employee), many people with a background -- even so much as a background containing only an arrest record -- will abruptly discover that the employer no longer wants to hire them. This proposed change with simply make it harder for someone with a criminal background to obtain employment. The best strategy to keep someone from re-offending is a job. The federal government should not be in the business further disenfranchising people who have a criminal background -- especially given the disparate treatment black and brown people experience in policing and in our criminal justice system. One-third of the U.S. population has an arrest record by age 23. Among black males, 49% of them will have an arrest record by age 23. Separately, I am troubled by the requirement to disclosure "all other offenses." Do you honestly want to include status offenses such as truancy, underage drinking, curfew violations? Without some additional clarification regarding the meaning of "all other offenses," you are including these minor offenses that are committed by our youth. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2468 | we The people voted for our choice for President we dont need you to get in the way of his progress so sit down and shut up | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2664 | PLEASE QUIT SQUANDERING our votes and tax dollars! We elected you to support our GOVERNMENT which INCLUDES the President of the United States, whom we also DULY ELECTED. Stop the B.S. and get to work or youll be the one we impeach… |
1 | ||||
| Citizens for Juvenile Justice-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0111 | On behalf of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, I write in opposition to amending question 9 in the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306 by asking applicants to federal and federal contract employment if they have been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed. Diversionary programs are an important tool in our service offerings to uphold public safety in our communities. Typical diversion programs target individuals accused of low-level offenses as a way to prevent future offending. We oppose limiting the employment opportunities of individuals who successfully complete diversionary programs and have no conviction on their record to be treated similarly to others who have been convicted of a crime and those sentenced to imprisonment or probation or parole. The proposed question will undermine a backbone tool in our juvenile and criminal justice systems where individuals are engaged in community service, or rehabilitative programming, if needed. These programs are typically run by law enforcement or the courts who see these programs as holding accountable individuals who do not represent a public safety risk. A key component to encourage participation in diversionary programming is that upon successful completion the individual would not have a criminal record. This key provision helps both engage more individuals in diversionary programs and offers a compelling incentive for their successful completion. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2625 | You took an oath to defend our constitution. Do what you swore to do. Stop the spread of socialism in this great country! |
|||||
| The County of Santa Clara-Agency | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2457 | The County of Santa Clara opposes the proposed changes to Question 9 in the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306. The amended Question 9 would ask people applying for federal and federal contract employment if they have been subject to a judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed. Criminal justice diversion programs take many different forms. In one form, there is generally a program that the accused must complete as a condition of diversion. The individual is offered some form of treatment or voluntary sanction that, once completed, justifies the dismissal of the criminal allegation and frees the individual from the impacts of having a criminal record. The main goal of diversion for an individual is rehabilitation. Essential services are offered that can address the alleged criminal behavior including but not limited to, alcohol and drug abuse. It is hoped that diversion will allow individuals to learn from past mistakes, received needed services and establish a productive law-abiding lifestyle, without the burden of a criminal record. The County of Santa Clara realizes many benefits when individuals participate in diversion programs. Diverting adults from criminal prosecution and jail custody into community treatment programs saves money as court and incarceration costs far exceed treatment costs. Also, by focusing on the persons root issues that led to the criminal allegation and providing appropriate treatment, her or she is less likely to once again become involved in the criminal justice system. This further reduces expenses, negates the negative social impacts of a criminal record and incarceration t and more importantly, improves public safety in our community by producing positive outcomes. The potential of not having an offense on a criminal record can encourage participation in and successful completion of diversion programs. The proposed changes to Question 9 will undermine this key component of diversion programs. It is for this reason we oppose the changes under consideration. There is no public safety justification for requiring applicants to disclose participation in a diversion program. These programs are for people who have been alleged to have committed low-level offenses and that do not pose a significant public safety risk. Limiting their employment opportunities will not prevent crime; in fact, it will ensure they have fewer ways to remain or re-enter society as productive individuals. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen-Self | FedReg, 4-16-19; #0016 | I am strongly against this change for many reasons; it adds nothing to the outcome; it wastes federal tax-payer dollars; it adds to the already burdensome bureaucracy of federal job application and hiring process. But more important than all of this is how un-American it is. This country was built on the backs of enslaved and indentured people. But thankfully it was also founded in moral and religious guidelines that include forgiveness and the ability and hope to pull oneself up by the bootstraps and make a life for oneself. Do not vote this horrible, faintly-hidden racist change into law. It is immoral. It will serve no true purpose other than to create more obstacles for job-seekers. The concept itself is disgraceful. In prayer and peace, From a white, non-felon, retired, voting, veteran who served for a better country than this rule would signify. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2728 | I have wholeheartedly agreed with all the reforms that President Trump has tried to enact. Those opposing the President will come up for reelection sometime and those of us supporting the President will remember. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2436 | Americans first is your first priority. Any thing else is treason. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2638 | STOP SCREWING AROUND AND GET THESE CRIMINAL IN DC (DEMOCRATS) UNDER CONTROL OR YOU WILL SEE AN ALL OUT REVOLUTION IN THE U.S. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2508 | PLEASE WORK WITH THE PRESIDENT !. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2411 | QUIT TRYING TO UNDO THE GREAT CHANGES MADE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. HE HAS DONE MORE TO MAGA THAN THE LAST THREE PRESIDENTS. TRYING TO UNDO HIS ACHIEVEMENTS IS A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!! YOU FOOLS! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2222 | Please follow the original intent of the First Step Act (FSA), which was to avoid a criminal conviction and the challenges that come with it--particularly for individuals who were charged with petty offenses but were given a second chance by a judge. Those people should not be subject to the same stigmata as others with more serious criminal convictions and records. The FSA was initially passed with a strong bipartisan coalition. Do not cause the original congressional intent to be subverted. There are few good reasons to step backwards, towards more and unnecessary mass incarceration. The decision of the OPM to try to blunt the original intent of the legislation is not supported by the majority of U.S. citizens and their representatives. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2470 | Please stand with our President and get to work. We can vote you out of office for accomplishing nothing. Help America prosper. Stop the obstruction and do your job. Voters are sick of the political infighting. Thank you. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2536 | to the anti trump politicians u morons just can;t get over the fact that trump beat that lying treasoness clinton. u pushed for an investigation and now complain about the results u pushed the fica dossier to start the illegal investigation if i were trump, i would have all of u put in front of a firing squad and clean up washington then i would go after all the crooks from the monkey obamas adminisrtion and line them up next |
|||||
| Public-Citizen-Diane Israel | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2267 | I do not believe the wording in Question 9 should be changed. The current administration has been very supportive of criminal justice reform legislation and also of programs that assist people with a criminal record in finding work. The proposed change in the wording of Question 9 would do just the opposite by requiring applicants to confirm that they have "been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed." This would effectively punish applicants who have never been convicted of a crime. |
|||||
| Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, et. al.-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2656 | The Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, the Public Interest Law Center, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, oppose the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) proposed rule change that would require applicants for federal employment to disclose that they have successfully completed court or judge specified requirements in exchange for criminal charges against them being dismissedoften referred to as diversion. According to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the information will be used to determine a persons acceptability for Federal and Federal contractor employment. As set forth in the attached Comments, OPM has offered no explanation of how this information is relevant to eligibility for government employment or employment with a government contractor. Instead, required disclosure of completion of a diversion program will likely chill or exclude eligible and qualified applicants, create confusion about what must be disclosed, and will further racial inequities, disparately impacting African-American applicants. Required disclosure subverts the important and demonstrably successful purposes of diversion programs, essentially negates state court decision-making, and runs counter to bipartisan federal policy. 1 AGENCY: OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DOCKET ID: OPM-2019-0002 AGENCY INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES; PROPOSALS, SUBMISSIONS, AND APPROVALS: DECLARATION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, the Public Interest Law Center, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law1 oppose the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) proposed rule change that would require applicants for federal employment to disclose that they have successfully completed court or judge specified requirements in exchange for criminal charges against them being dismissed—often referred to as “diversion.” According to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the information will be used “to determine a person’s acceptability for Federal and Federal contractor employment.” OPM has offered no explanation of how this information is relevant to eligibility for government employment or employment with a government contractor. Instead, required disclosure of completion of a diversion program will likely chill or exclude eligible and qualified applicants, create confusion about what must be disclosed, and will further racial inequities, disparately impacting African-American applicants. Required disclosure subverts the important and demonstrably successful purposes of diversion programs, essentially negates state court decision-making, and runs counter to bipartisan federal policy. I. The Proposal Thwarts the Valuable Purpose of Diversion Programs Diversion programs are a critically important element of many state criminal justice systems. They allow a person accused of a crime to avoid a criminal prosecution by completing certain requirements, such as community service. Although diversion programs vary across the 1 Founded in 1968, The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs works to create legal, economic and social equity through litigation, client and public education and public policy advocacy. While we fight discrimination against all people, we recognize the central role that current and historic race discrimination plays in sustaining inequity and recognize the critical importance of identifying, exposing, combating and dismantling the systems that sustain racial oppression. The Public Interest Law Center, part of the national consortium of affiliates of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, uses high-impact legal strategies to advance the civil, social, and economic rights of communities in the Philadelphia region facing discrimination, inequality, and poverty. Through its Fair Employment Opportunities Project, the Law Center uses litigation, community education, and advocacy to address the widespread discriminatory use of criminal background checks in hiring which creates nearly insurmountable barriers for large numbers of individuals of color in obtaining the employment they need to lead stable and sustainable lives and contribute to their families and communities. The principle mission of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities. The Lawyers’ Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar’s leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity – work that continues to be vital today. country, they typically are available only to those accused of non-violent crimes who have no criminal record. By definition, applicants who have criminal charges dismissed in exchange for completing court-ordered requirements (diversion) have been found by a judge to have demonstrated—on the basis of their record and the facts of underlying the criminal charges—that that they should not be convicted of a crime and should not bear the life-long consequences of a criminal conviction. They have adhered to a program designed to demonstrate a readiness and ability to participate in society. Their success enables them to avoid a host of negative consequences of a criminal conviction, including un- or under-employment and housing instability. Additionally, the explanation of the change in OPM’s Notice and Request for Comments suggests that it may have an even more far-ranging effect than disclosure of having completed a diversion program, explaining that, through the rule change, “OPM is proposing to add a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” Presumably, this means that an applicant for employment must identify the charges brought against the person. This is in itself problematic, because prosecutors may enumerate a litany of charges, most of which are dropped or used to negotiate a plea. They therefore may have been over-charged, and the charges may not reflect the lack of gravity of the allegedly wrongful act(s). The individual may not remember all of the charges, and may therefore not be able to give a complete answer to the question. Or, because of the range of types of diversion programs across state and local criminal systems, the applicant may not know whether the particular program they participated in is one that must be disclosed. This understandable confusion may result in additional negative consequences for having failed to disclose having required information. Finally, if OPM is actually requiring the individual to “admit” to those charges—which the person may have contested and which have never been proven—OPM is abusing its power as a large employer, to extort from an individual that which the justice system was unwilling or unable to do. Generally, people who are offered diversion are told that, if they simply abide by terms set by a judge—such as completing community service, undergoing substance abuse treatment, or simply remaining crime free for a period of time—the charges against them will be dismissed and they will not be convicted of a crime. In many diversion programs, the person is not required to admit guilt and a judge never makes a finding of guilt. With this understanding, many people who are offered diversion engage in a cost-benefit analysis and decide to complete diversion rather than engage in the lengthy, disruptive and risky process of contesting the charges against them. They avoid missing work for court appearances, are relieved of the anxiety of criminal charges hanging over their heads, and eliminate the risk of a criminal conviction. People who make this choice rely on the promise made by a judge and, in many instances, a prosecutor, that the charges will be wiped from their record. They give up their right to contest the charges against them on the good faith belief in this promise. Thus, by requiring disclosure of successful completion of a diversion program, the proposed OPM rule takes away the clean slate that the diversion option offered and upon which many relied in agreeing to give up their right to contest the charges. II. The proposed rule does not address any existing problem, need or legitimate goal. Other than referring to a “gap” in the current rule, the proposed revision does not identify a problem the change is intended to address, resolve a shortcoming in the current rule that adversely impacts the federal government as an employer, or further an articulated governmental interest or goal.2 In proposing the rule change, OPM has not provided any data that ties successful completion of a diversion program to suitability for any and all federal employment. Indeed, there is no such link. To the contrary, as discussed below, programs that lead to employment will reduce recidivism. That is the goal of diversion: to enable persons accused of low level crimes to move on and lead crime-free lives, without being saddled with the life-long consequences of criminal convictions, including their adverse impact on employment prospects. III. The proposed rule change will have a negative, unfair and disproportionate effect on African-American applicants for federal employment. It is well established that African Americans are more likely to be arrested and charged with crimes than their white peers, and face discrimination at each stage of the criminal justice system, including during pleas bargaining.3 These disparities are influenced by a broad array of factors that compound one another: disparities in the way communities of color are policed; disparities in resource allocation; discrimination in employment; and bias on the part of police officers and prosecutors. As a consequence, African Americans are more likely to be ensnared in the criminal justice system and may face a higher bar before being given the opportunity to have their case dismissed in exchange for completing court ordered terms. Examples of disparate and over-policing abound: A report of the United States Department of Health and Human Services found a “significantly higher likelihood of having ever been arrested among blacks, when compared to whites, even after accounting for a range of delinquent behaviors.”4 A study of arrests reported to the FBI between 2011 and 2012 revealed that African Americans were more likely to be arrested than other racial groups in almost every city for almost every type of crime. At least 70 police departments arrested African Americans at a rate 10 times higher than other groups.5 2 In this regard, the Notice simply notes that, under the current rule, persons who have successfully completed diversion currently may not have to “report the details of the offense” and the change closes that “gap.” However, as explained above, the ability not to disclose the charged offense is among the results that diversion programs are designed to achieve, in exchange for which the applicant gives up the right to contest the charge. Nowhere does OPM justify a need for any, much less all federal employers and their contractors, to know the details of an alleged offense that has not been proven and which was to have been removed from the individual’s record in order for that person to continue to engage in, and contribute to, their community. 3 See, generally, Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness (rev. ed. 2012); Angela J. Davis, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor (2007). 4 Understanding Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Arrest: The Role of Individual, Home, School and Community Characteristics; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509345/ 5 Brad Heath, Racial gap in U.S. arrest rates: ‘Staggering disparity,’ USA TODAY, November 18, 2014, available at In its investigation of the Baltimore Police Department, the United States Department of Justice determined that there were large racial disparities in pedestrian and vehicle stops throughout Baltimore. Officers also searched African Americans at higher rates during these stops, even though searches of African Americans were less likely to find contraband than searches of people from other racial backgrounds. The Department of Justice found that these disparities in search rates could not be explained by characteristics other than race. Baltimore officers also arrested African Americans at much higher rates that their white peers. The discriminatory pattern of arrests was particularly apparent in warrantless arrests for discretionary misdemeanor offenses such as disorderly conduct and failing to obey an officer’s order and arrests for drug possession, the types of offenses for which diversion often is offered.6 A recent report by the ACLU of Pennsylvania showed that, in every neighborhood in Philadelphia, Black pedestrians were stopped by police officers out of proportion to their percentage of the local population. The racial disparities in stops are widest in neighborhoods in which Black Philadelphians make up a lower percentage of the population and that the disparities cannot be explained by factors other than race.7 In a study of enforcement of the District of Columbia’s fare evasion statute, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs found that 91% of citations for failing to pay the fare on Washington DC’s public transportation system were given to African Americans, despite the fact that African Americans comprise only approximately 50% of the population of Washington, DC.8 A 2014 report by the Vera Institute that analyzed criminal cases in New York concluded that, after controlling for the influence of other factors (like charge seriousness or prior records), Black defendants were unfairly treated in charging decisions, detention decisions and in plea bargaining: 10% more likely than similarly-situated white defendants to be detained after arraignment; 20% more likely than similarly-situated white defendants to be detained after arraignment for misdemeanor person offenses; |
|||||
| Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1971 | I do NOT support asking applicants if they have ever been in a program for diversion, regardless of whether they have ever been convicted of an offense. This is an over-criminalization of federal applicants. DO NOT APPROVE this change. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2464 | STOP THE OBSTUCTION OF THE TRUMP AJJENDY TO MAKE THE CONTRY GREAT AGAIN !!! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2563 | How can you keep letting this deep state keep going it is harming our country. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2245 | This is a terrible idea. The whole point of diversion is to prevent a permanent criminal stain on someone's record and to re-integrate them into society. This policy change contravenes the tenor of the First Step act which was passed by BOTH conservatives and liberals. As the Justice Action Network notes: "This policy change, quietly filed in February, would undermine so much of the hard work we have undertaken over the past several years to reduce the stigma associated with prior criminal offenses and the collateral consequences of involvement with the legal system. And history has shown that when we throw up obstacles to employment for people with records, they very often return to crime...making us all less safe!" |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2393 | Please stop trying to to undo or obstruct every move our President Trump does or tries to do! It's getting ridiculous and interfering with the good of our country!! Thank you! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2522 | We, the American people, stand with President Trump and his conservative justice reforms. We also would like the Republicans to unite and the Democrats to start seeking justice for all Americans, as well as coming to the table and uniting with our President. | |||||
| Department of Interior-Citizen | FedReg, 4-21-19; #0003 | 1. Block 17a and Block 17b. Suggested change to the the signature line from "Sign in ink" to "Sign in Ink/Apply Electronic Signature" 2. Block 16, Appointee block. Suggested change to modify language "... and any attached sheets" to "... and any attached sheets/electronic pages" 3. Block 17, line 1. Suggested change to modify language "... on and attached to this document" to "... on and attached (either with hard copy or electronic pages)..." |
My Agency handles the OF-306 electronically. Language on the OF-306 needs to be updated to take electronic processing into account. | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2539 | I fully support President Trump. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2611 | Yes Let's Continue To Keep American Great Again Amen. Signed Mr Jesus Najera A Republican Voter. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2383 | please stop blocking president trumps agenda | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2497 | Please write your comment here.Ok you Democrats Lost on the Collusion-Delusion... NOW DO YOUR DAMN JOBS!! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2650 | get rid of the deep state!!!!! Lock them all up !!!!! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2649 | Get off your "high horse" and start working for the good of the country not the good of your own party. Trump may not be the first choice of someone that you'd want your daughter to marry, but he wasn't put into office for that reason. He knows business and is definitely helping the country out. QUIT UNDERRMINING EVERYTHING THAT HE IS DOING AND TRYING TO DO. WE ARE BETTER OFF RIGHT NOW THAN WE WERE. ADMIT IT, GET OVER IT AND START DOING YOUR JOB FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. | |||||
| National Juvenile Justice Network-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2281 | UNABLE to OPEN PDF-Page 90 | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2736 | We the people elected Donald Trump to be our President and we expect cooperation from everyone in Congress to help achieve those goals outlined in Campaign. Those that are obstructing what we want will be voted OUT | |||||
| Legal Services of New Jersey-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2289 | Please see the attached comments on the Office of Personnel Management proposed revision of a previously-approved information collection, Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306. 84 Fed. Reg. 5733 (Feb 22, 2019) from Legal Services of New Jersey. April 23, 2019 Via Electronic Mail National Bureau of Background Investigations Attn: Donna McLeod Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Re: Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306; OMB 3206-0182 Dear Ms. McLeod: Legal Services of New Jersey (LSNJ) coordinates the statewide legal services system in New Jersey, providing free legal assistance to low-income people in civil matters statewide. We write in opposition to the proposed amendments to the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306 (OMB) (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22,2019). Specifically, question 9 in the OMB is proposed to be modified to ask applicants for federal and federal contract employment ifthey have "been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed." As further stated in the OMB, the "proposed change closes a gap for those who participate in or successfully complete this type of alternative disposition and may not have to answer affirmatively to the current question." The proposal further suggests including an explanation in the instructions that the questions and answers are not optional and must be answered. We believe these proposed changes will not serve to promote public safety, will create barriers to employment and discriminate against those having criminal and juvenile justice system involvement. Attachment to employment helps promote effective individual "reentry," reduce recidivism and increase public safety. Yet, in our observed experience, employers routinely deny employment opportunities to those with juvenile and adult records. Sadly, some clients have faced employment barriers merely as a Coordinating New Jersey's Legal Services System result of reporting dismissed cases. Also, given the disproportionate arrest of people of color in the state of New Jersey and nationwide, such a proposal might have disparate impact on racial minorities. See, generally, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement Guidance "EEOC"), p.3 (2012) ("African Americans and Hispanics are arrested at a rate that is 2 to 3 times their proportion of the general population"). Diversion programs serve an important role in our justice system, not only providing relief to law enforcement and our courts, but promoting better individual outcomes and increased public safety. Diversion may be available to eligible juveniles, "first-time," low-risk and non-violent offenders, those with drug or alcohol issues and our military veterans. In order to obtain the benefits of diversion, participants must successfully complete a strict program which can include payment of fine or fees, community service, and education or vocation programs. Successful diversion program participants earn the right to avoid certain collateral consequences of a criminal conviction record as no conviction is entered on these cases. Accordingly, these individuals should not be considered by employers in similar fashion to those who have pleaded to their guilt, been convicted by a court of law and sentenced accordingly. Many jurisdictions have enacted laws to help facilitate reentry and counter discrimination against those with juvenile and adult criminal records. "Ban the Box" laws, by removing any inquiries from employment applications and initial interviews, attempt to afford applicants a "step in the door" and an opportunity to establish rapport, as opposed to being subject to a flat denial due to the existence of an arrest or conviction record. Expungement, sealing and record clearing statutes have also been employed in attempt to reduce collateral consequences leading to employment difficulties for those with justice involvement by shielding past arrests and conviction from public view for those who qualify for the relief. The EEOC through its best practices, supports the elimination of policies or practices that exclude people from employment based on any criminal record. The proposed amendments work against these well-placed and intended reforms, and would likely have the opposite effect -- discouraging individuals with juvenile and criminal justice involvement from seeking employment and contracting opportunities with the federal government, and in the process, creating more barriers to employment and frustrating the reentry efforts of many potential employees. For these reasons, we do not support the proposed amendments to the federal pre-employment and contract screening questionnaire. Please let us know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Legals Services of New Jersey, Akil Roper |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-21-19; #0006 | It would make sense to begin this process at the TOP. If the rules and regulations are going to be changed there should be accountability for every federal employee or contractor who have ever used a diversionary program to avoid jail and or prison and has thrived from the use of such program. Of course the government should screen for security purposes however, what the government intends to do with that information in moving forward will be inconsistent with the creation and implementation of diversionary programs. How many government employees beginning at the top have taken advantage of diversionary programs. What should be happening is the creation of forgiveness programs for those who have (certain offenses) criminal blemishes in their history after serving prison time, paying their fines and completing probation and or parole. What about those who have shown that they want to be forgiven for bad choices that have exacted a heavy toll on their lives such as but not limited to shame, guilt, ruined families and communities. What about them? |
|||||
| National Association of Drug Court Professionals-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2274 | I wish to bring to your attention National Association of Drug Court Professionals concern with the proposed rule change for the OPM Declaration for Federal Employment Form (84 Fed. Reg. 5733 Filed 22119). The proposed rule is recommending several changes, but most concerning to us is the proposed change to question 9: During the last 7 years have you: been convicted of any crime (including misdemeanors, felonies, firearms or explosives violations, domestic violence, alcohol, drugs, and all other crimes or offenses); been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed; served time in jail or prison as a result of being convicted of a crime; or been on probation or parole? Many participants in drug court are incentivized with the promise of their case being dismissed upon successful completion of the program. If question 9 is amended with this language, however, the dismissal has no value for the individual seeking employment in the federal government. Not only does the proposed rule change diminish a key incentive for someone to enter drug court, it reduces employment prospects for drug court participants upon graduation. Based on our review, it appears the proposed rule change conflicts with some state laws regarding dismissal of cases. Applicants who successfully completed a drug court program must choose between the promise of their state law or a possible penalty of federal perjury for failing to report their drug court supervision. Finally, the inclusion of this language goes against bi-partisan reforms such as second chances and ban the box. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this potentially harmful language. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|||||
| Collateral Consequences Resource Center-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1605 | April 18, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Comments to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod, Our organization, the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, promotes public engagement on issues raised by the collateral consequences of arrest or conviction. We document and analyze law reform efforts aimed at facilitating reintegration for people with a criminal record. We are writing in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments on its proposed revision of the Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306, the form for applicants for federal employment and contract work. See 84 Fed. Reg. 5733 (February 22, 2019). Specifically, we would like to offer comments on the proposed requirement that applicants disclose whether they have participated in “a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like” in the last 7 years. For ease of discussion, we will refer to these dispositions as “pretrial diversion.” For the following reasons, we encourage OPM to withdraw the proposed requirement for disclosure of diversions. 1. Diversion is Increasingly Favored by States as a Means of Encouraging Rehabilitation Pretrial diversion refers to a procedure or procedures in which a prosecutor or court agree with a person accused of a crime to resolve criminal charges without a conviction, if the person complies with certain conditions.1 Thus broadly defined, pretrial diversion is authorized by statute in 49 states and the District of Columbia.2 It can also be authorized by prosecutorial consent (as in most situations in the federal system3) or by a court rule. It may or may not require a person to 1 See Pretrial Diversion from the Criminal Justice Process, 83 YALE L.J. 827 (1974). 2 See Pretrial Diversion, National Conference of State Legislatures (September 28, 2017), available at http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/pretrial-diversion.aspx (providing statutes for 48 states and the District of Columbia); S.D. Codified Laws §§ 23A-3-35, 23A-3-36, 23A-27-12.2, 23A-27-13. The one state that apparently lacks diversion by statute, North Dakota, provides for diversion by court rule. See N.D. R. Crim. P. 32.2. 3 See United States Attorneys Manual, § 9-22.000 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a). 2 of 4 plead guilty as a condition of participation. The trend in the states in the past decade has been to expand the availability of these non-conviction dispositions,4 “to rehabilitate individuals who have committed crimes, to make reparation to crime victims, and to advance public safety.”5 Their rehabilitative purpose is advanced by the promise of avoiding the disabling collateral consequences and stigma that follow conviction. There are two primary types of diversions. In a pure diversion, a prosecutor offers and a person agrees to be placed in a community-based diversion program and comply with certain conditions. In a deferred adjudication—available in all but 13 states in at least some cases—a person who has been charged typically agrees to plead guilty, and the court agrees to place the person on probation and not enter a conviction.6 After successful completion of a diversion program, the charges are dismissed and the case is terminated. In most states, the person will become eligible to have the arrest and court records closed to the public via expungement, sealing, or some similar procedure.7 The American Law Institute, the leading national law reform organization, advocates for diversionary dispositions in its 2017 Model Penal Code: Sentencing (deferred prosecution and deferred adjudication), with roots dating back to the 1960s and 1970s.8 The American Bar Association, National District Attorneys Association, and major national defender organizations have joined together to urge jurisdictions to support and fund prosecutors and others seeking to develop “deferred adjudication/deferred sentencing/diversion options that avoid a 4 See Margaret Colgate Love, Alternatives to Conviction: Deferred Adjudication as a Way of Avoiding Collateral Consequences, 22 FED. SENT’G REP. 6, 7 (2009) (finding that deferred adjudication schemes “are statutorily authorized in over half the states”). 5 See Model Penal Code: Sentencing §§ 6.03, cmt. (2017). 6 See Margaret Love, Joshua Gaines & Jenny Osborne, Forgiving & Forgetting in American Justice: A 50-State Guide to Expungement and Restoration of Rights, Collateral Consequences Resource Center, at 13-14 (August 2018), available at https://ccresourcecenter.org/tag/forgiving-and-forgetting/. 7 Our research indicates that 42 states allow record-closing for diversion, including deferred adjudication where available, either explicitly or by allowing record-closing for dismissals without excluding diversion or deferred adjudication (some states have additional eligibility requirements such as waiting periods and ineligible offenses). See Restoration of Rights Project, Collateral Consequences Resource Center, Chart 4 (“Judicial Expungement, Sealing, and Set-aside”), available at http://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-state-comparisonjudicial-expungement-sealing-and-set-aside/; State Profiles, available at http://restoration.ccresourcecenter.org/. Eight states do not provide for record-closing and restoration of rights after successful completion of diversion and/or deferred adjudication. Id. Even federal law provides for expungement of diversions, though on an admittedly fairly limited basis. See 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a) and (c) (deferred adjudication for first misdemeanor drug possession, and expungement if the defendant was under age 21 at the time of the offense). 8 See Model Penal Code: Sentencing §§ 6.03, 6.04 (2017); Love, Alternatives to Conviction, supra note 4, 22 FED. SENT’G REP. at 7 (‘‘In the 1970s, many states adopted deferred adjudication laws that were evidently inspired by the Corrections Articles of the Model Penal Code.”). 3 of 4 permanent conviction record” for a people deemed appropriate for a community supervision sentence.9 2. OPM’s Proposal Treats Diversions like Convictions While state lawmakers, judges, and prosecutors favor diversionary dispositions in appropriate cases to help people avoid the restrictions and stigma of a conviction, OPM’s proposal disfavors them by treating them like convictions. Specifically, the proposal would amend the federal employment and contracting form, OF 306, to require an applicant to disclose not only whether the applicant has current pending charges, or whether, during the last 7 years, the applicant has been convicted of a crime, served time in jail or prison, or been on probation or parole, but also—for the first time—whether the applicant has been “subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed.” See 84 Fed. Reg. 5733 (February 22, 2019). Disclosure, and the likely resulting discrimination, would subvert the many benefits of diversion that have encouraged their increased use by prosecutors in recent years, including “allowing for positive community perceptions of the justice system.”10 At a time of growing consensus in Congress and the states about the need to prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration for individuals with a criminal record, OPM should be moving to reduce—rather than increase—the collateral consequences of diversion (as Indiana and Wisconsin did in 2018 when they prohibited licensing boards from considering arrests not resulting in conviction, or California and Nevada did in 2017 when they prohibited employers from considering an applicant’s successful completion of diversion).11 3. OPM’s Proposal is Ambiguous About What Must be Disclosed The language of the OPM proposal does not make clear exactly what must be disclosed. First, the proposal does not make clear whether prosecutor-directed diversions are covered. While the language of OPM’s notice says “OPM is proposing to add a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial 9 ABA 2007 Report with Recommendation #103A (Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions, co-sponsored by the National District Attorneys Association, National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, National Legal Aid and Defenders Association). 10 See Erica McWhorter & David LaBahn, Confronting the Elephants in the Courtroom Through Prosecutor Led Diversion Efforts, 79 ALB. L. REV. 1221, 1239 (2016). While it is true that a number of states allow closed records to be reviewed for law enforcement employment and other sensitive positions, federal law already accounts for this concern through more rigorous background investigations and disclosure forms for sensitive, national security, and public trust positions. 11 Ind. Code § 25-1-1.1-6(d); Wis. Stat. § 111.335(4) (certain offenses exempted); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12952; Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 284.281(4) (covering public employment, with exceptions). 4 of 4 intervention or diversionary program or the like,” the question itself says disclosure is required if the applicant has been “subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed.” Are a prosecutor’s diversion conditions “court specified”? Second, the proposal does not make clear if diversions must be reported if the record has been sealed under state law. While the OF 306 states that a person may omit “any conviction for which the record was expunged under Federal or state law,” the proposal does not amend that section or otherwise make clear whether a person whose diversion was expunged must nonetheless disclose it. Whether or not it is intentional, the failure to authorize applicants to omit expunged diversions perversely results in harsher treatment of diversions than convictions. Moreover, the term “expunge” does not have a commonly accepted definition, and many states use other terms such as seal, erase, annul, or set-aside to describe record-closing relief.12 States also give differing effect to these terms, ranging from a limited sealing to full destruction of the record.13 Assuming expunged diversions may be omitted on the same basis as expunged convictions, may these dispositions also be omitted?14 This lack of clarity has real consequences. A false statement on the OF 306 can be grounds for rejection, termination, or criminal prosecution for false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Therefore, uncertainty about whether or not prosecutor-directed or sealed diversions must be disclosed could dissuade people from applying for work (or subject them to unfair punishment for non-disclosure). Moreover, such an ambiguous disclosure requirement will be hard to enforce, and susceptible to court challenge. Because the proposed requirement for disclosure of diversions is ill-advised as a matter of policy and legally problematic, we respectfully encourage OPM to withdraw it. At the very least, OPM should amend the language to clarify whether prosecutor-directed diversions and records that have been sealed must be disclosed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Margaret Colgate Love Executive Director Collateral Consequences Resource Center 12 See Love, Alternatives to Conviction, supra note 4, 22 FED. SENT’G REP. at n.4; Love et. al, Forgiving & Forgetting in American Justice, supra note 6, at 25 n.4. 13 See Restoration of Rights Project, Chart 4, supra note 7. 14 This ambiguity extends to convictions as well, a further problem with the OPM policy that we note but will not at this point address further. It is a problem in federal law that is not confined to the OPM policy. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2715 | Dems need to do your job instead of trying to take down TRUMP. Reps need to support the President and fight the IDIOT Dems | |||||
| Center for American Progress-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2367 | Dear Ms. McLeod: We are writing in response to the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. The Center for American Progress (CAP) is an independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans, through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. Generation Progress, the young adult engagement arm of CAP, is a national organization that works with and for young people to promote progressive solutions to key political and social challenges. Our criminal justice and clean slate efforts are led by a team of experts, who have federal experience at the U.S. Department of Justice and local government and nonprofit experience. Given our experience and expertise, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Declaration for Federal Employment (OF306) because they undermine the ability of qualified job applicants with an arrest or conviction record to compete fairly for employment. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like. 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. The proposed changes thus undermine bi-partisan criminal justice reform initiatives, like the federal First Step Act, that seek to promote and reward rehabilitation and limit the debilitating impact of an arrest or conviction record on the individual, their families and communities. OPMs proposed policy would also override the intent of cities, states, and courts that have developed and implemented successful diversion programs, and it would have a particularly harmful and disproportionate impact on people with histories of substance use and mental health disorders who have participated in such diversion programs. These proposed changes are completely at odds with the President Trumps recently released 2019 Office of National Drug Control Strategy, urging the federal government to increase employment opportunities for people in recovery. By creating these new reporting requirements, OPM is undermining the employment prospects of people with arrest records including those who do not have convictions and discouraging well qualified workers from seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ed Chung Vice President, Center for American Progress Rebecca Vallas Vice President, Center for American Progress Brent J. Cohen Executive Director, Generation Progress |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2665 | Please write your comment here.i believe that God has his hand on President Trump, if you read your bible you would understand what I mean Daniel was thrown in the lions den and God protected him also then there was David and Goliath and David took down the giant and there are many more things that God had done to protect his own children of God you can throw sticks and stones but it will not break a man of God. Wake up people and realize that God and we the people put him in office to do what we wanted him to do so Mr. President Trump keep up your faith and keep up the great work that you are doing start investigating the deep state. We love you President Trump. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2551 | Start working with our President in stead of against him people are sick and tire of the games that are being played to hold up and stall this Presidents agenda !! |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-16-19; #0017 | I am convinced this expanded disclosure requirement will ultimately have a negative effect on individuals who have paid for their mistake and desire to be better citizens, waste federal investigators time and, thus, taxpayers funds without gaining significantly useful information. If a federal agency simply presumed that an individual probably was guilty of the underlying charges, or that he or she probably has an ongoing character defect that necessitated the diversion, this would violate the U.S. Constitution in more than one way (two examples being presumption of innocence and due process). Actual facts can differ greatly from allegations, and individuals often consent to diversion terms in order to avoid even a slight risk of criminal conviction." |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2591 | Please write your comment Dear President Trump I stand behind you 100%. I feel terrible for you and your family how terrible you have been treated. I hope Mr Barr will look into how this Mueller investigation got started. They should definitely look into Hilary Clinton believe you me if I did that they throw away the key. What is going on in our country is a joke. I hope and pray that they get to the bottom of all these lies. Thank you for all you have done for our economy. Mrs Trump you are a wonderful First Lady with much class. God Bless the Trump Family. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2485 | YOU PEOPLE NEED to understand- The American people do not support you in this effort to destroy Trumps agenda! He's the best thing for this country that's ever happened, and we know it hands down! You will only get thrown out of office at the next election with this continual ignorance! Why you are not able to see your own ignorance is beyond me! AS for me and my family, you will never receive a single vote! It's time to change course! We're coming after you! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2749 | It's time to stop fighting everything the President tries to do and begin to be the servants you were sent to Washington to do for your constituents--pass good laws to help make life better for them. Pass the President's law for conservative justice reforms! |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2491 | Please quit undermining the good that the president has already done! He will continue to do good if you all will do what we the voters want, you were elected to work for us, not just get a fat paycheck from lobbyists! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2513 | Give President Trump room to make decisions to help our Country | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2532 | Last year President Trump made history by passing a landmark conservative justice reform bill. But instead of helping the president clean up our streets, DC bureaucrats are doing everything they can to erase all the great progress he's made! President Trump has done nothing but help America, and was even found innocent of all charges in the Russia Collusion Witch Hunt that lasted two years. Enough is enough! His opponents don't care about justice, or about America, they only care about getting their way, even if they have to destroy us to do it. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2702 | I want you to follow the lead of President Trump and stop all of this backward, progress-killing legislation. It is needless and unwarranted. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2244 | Sir or Madame: Please reconsider this rule to mandate disclosure of diversion programs in lieu of criminal prosecution. Your proposed rule undoes the 'Second Chance' act and makes federal employment for those successfully completing a diversion program unlikely. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Jennifer L. Guy Columbus, Ohio |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2670 | Enough is enough. Stop wasting our money on nonsense. Devote your time to take care of the peoples needs. Boarder Wall, Roads, Immigration, Homelessness. Things that matter to the people. Do your JOB… | |||||
| South Carolina Center for Father's and Families-Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2227 | Comments from Gale R. DuBose, Jobs Not Jail Director and Legal Coordinator at the South Carolina Center for Father's and Families. April 19, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod SOUTH CAROLINA CENTER FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES Re: Comments to OPM's Declaration for Federal Employment Form (0F306) Dear Ms. McLeod: For more than 20 years, the South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families (Center) has been committed to reengaging fathers and strengthening relationships with their children as a means to improve overall childhood well-being and reduce poverty. We are not only a voice for fathers and their children but also provide them the tools and resources they need to overcome challenges and to be great dads. Lack of employment is a major barrier for many fathers to reconnecting and providing for their children. Fifty six percent (56%) entered our program unemployed. In addition to poor work history and lack of education and training, 76% of the men we serve have criminal records. We know how difficult it is to obtain employment with a criminal record. A record also creates barriers to housing, education and other opportunities necessary to being a good provider. South Carolina has a robust system of diversionary programs such as Pre-Trial Intervention, Alcohol Education and Traffic Education. Without these programs, the percentage of those with criminal records would certainly be greater. We oppose the proposed changes to the "Declaration for Federal Employmenr (0F306). especially Question 9, which "add[s] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like." 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. This change undermines the intent and purpose of these diversionary programs created by the states to better serve its citizens. This change makes it even more difficult to obtain employment and even discourages qualified applicants from even applying. Our participants, who have completed these programs and moved on with their lives, do not need to have these past mistakes once again hold them back and consequently hurt their families. In South Carolina part of the incentive of completing a diversionary program is that these actions will not appear on a criminal record and will not have to be disclosed. South Carolina, other states and the federal government have all taken recent steps to support criminal justice reform particularly with efforts to improve employment opportunities. This proposed change would be a major setback to these efforts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely: Gale R. DuBose, Esq. jobs Not Jail Director and Legal Coordinator |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2300 | Why does the Liberal Party think trying to even the playing field is okay when they do it but it's suddenly the end of the world when the Conservatives do it? Honestly, I'm sick of double standards, especially in politics. We can't go two minutes without wanting to tear at each other like wild animals or shouting like banshees over how wrong the opposite side is without so much as a shred of legitimate evidence to support it, relying too much on emotional outbursts from people if you don't feed their echo chamber mindsets! Hell, at this point I might as well yell at a wall for two hours or until my throat gets sore. Nevertheless, don't listen to the Deep State, Mob Mentality is the worst mentality. |
|||||
| Valley Court Diversion Programs-AgencyValley Court Diversion Programs | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1983 | Eligible parties who find themselves in contact with the criminal justice system deserve access to evidence-based, consistent, and effective Restorative Justice services. Crime is a violation of people and relationships as much as it is a violation of law. Punishment, as meted out by the traditional criminal justice system, frequently betrays human values such as dignity, healing, and interconnectedness. It has proven to be an inadequate response to many violations. To succeed in Court Diversion, a person accepts responsibility for their actions and repairs the harm they have caused so far as it is possible to do so. Court Diversion and Pretrial Services afford all partiesvictims, offenders, and communitiesthe best opportunities to heal and work towards a better, more harmonious future. Every Court Diversion case is an opportunity for someone to be their best self and make the most of a second chance. Participants work hard to take advantage of such an opportunity by acknowledging their wrongdoing and making amends. Having a charge dismissed and/or later expunged is an essential motivator. Please do not make disclosure of court diversion participation mandatory. In this era of criminal justice reform, do not undermine tremendous strides forward with such a punitive and regressive policy. Eligible parties who find themselves in contact with the criminal justice system deserve access to evidence-based, consistent, and effective Restorative Justice services. Crime is a violation of people and relationships as much as it is a violation of law. Punishment, as meted out by the traditional criminal justice system, frequently betrays human values such as dignity, healing, and interconnectedness. It has proven to be an inadequate response to many violations. To succeed in Court Diversion, a person accepts responsibility for their actions and repairs the harm they have caused so far as it is possible to do so. Court Diversion and Pretrial Services afford all partiesvictims, offenders, and communitiesthe best opportunities to heal and work towards a better, more harmonious future. Every Court Diversion case is an opportunity for someone to be their best self and make the most of a second chance. Participants work hard to take advantage of such an opportunity by acknowledging their wrongdoing and making amends. Having a charge dismissed and/or later expunged is an essential motivator. Please do not make disclosure of court diversion participation mandatory. In this era of criminal justice reform, do not undermine tremendous strides forward with such a punitive and regressive policy. Thank you. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1986 | This is a ridiculous rule proposal, and violates the spirit of diversion programs. It is not the place for the fourth branch of government to second-guess the prosecutors and defense attorneys in determining whether someone likely committed a crime, should have the mark of a convicted criminal follow them, and face ongoing punishment. This is nothing more than a veiled opportunity to preclude qualified underprivileged individuals from getting good government jobs. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0640 | The change in regulations that would require applicants for federal jobs to disclose whether they have ever been in a "diversion" program would waste federal regulators valuable time, and thus taxpayers valuable resources. It would require federal investigators to spend time researching questions already decided, with the only possible outcome being opportunities to second-guess decisions already made and perhaps many years in the past. While the burden of the proposed collection of information (the time spent checking a box) would be negligible, the burden on the agency of time spent on follow-up would be comparatively huge. The requirement to reinvestigate past cases could easily lead to federal agencies simply assuming a person was guilty of underlying charges, or bad character, which would violate the US constitution's requirements for due process and presumption of innocence. It is time to stop looking for excuses to criminalize behavior of citizens. This is a bad regulation and should not be enacted. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2444 | Instead of pulling Trump down, Please find ways to cooperate. He was the only candidate that was pressing to uphold the constitution. Our alternative would have been Hillary. | 0 | ||||
| Movement Advancement Project-Agency | FedReg, 4-16-19; #0012 | April 15, 2019 National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20415 Attn: Donna McLeod Re: Comments to OPM’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306) Dear Ms. McLeod: I write in response to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) request for comments (84 Fed. Reg. 5733, dated February 22, 2019) to the form completed by applicants for federal and federal contract employment. I write in my capacity as policy and research director of the Movement Advancement Project (MAP). MAP works to provide independent and rigorous research, insight and communications that help speed equality and opportunity for all. MAP works to ensure that all people have a fair chance to pursue health and happiness, earn a living, take care of the ones they love, be safe in their communities, and participate in civic life. Given our experience and expertise, we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the “Declaration for Federal Employment” (OF306) because they undermine the ability of people with an arrest or conviction record to compete fairly for employment while also discriminating against people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, people with a history of substance use and/or mental health disorders, and other communities who should be affirmatively valued and respected in the hiring process. Our major concern with OF306 relates to Question 9, which OPM is proposing to vastly expand by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 5733. Pre-trial diversion participation is not a conviction, and therefore is not relevant information needed by a potential employer. Pre-trial diversion programs serve as an alternative to prosecution and divert individuals away from incarceration and into community-based programs. Individuals who successfully complete these programs, including many people who have been arrested for the first time, are then able to move forward with their lives and seek gainful employment without the stigma of an arrest or conviction record. Surveys conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults and youth are greatly overrepresented in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. For example, nearly 60% of incarcerated girls are sexual minorities. This compares to approximately 10% of youth in general who identify as sexual minorities. The same study found that sexual minority youth are 2-3 times more likely to be held in custody for more than a year than are heterosexual youth. The data about adults in U.S. prisons and jails also show that LGB people are overrepresented. For example, LGB people make up about 4.2% of the U.S. population, but lesbian and bisexual women comprise 33% of the prison population. Given these rates of incarceration, it is likely that high numbers of LGB people have experience in diversion programs. Asking questions about these diversion programs, combined with the already high rates of employment discrimination experienced by LGBT people in the United States, will likely result in added challenges for LGBT people who have had interactions with the criminal justice system. Rather than encouraging employment, this policy will perpetuate higher rates of unemployment and reliance on public benefits for LGBT people. In addition, we object to the proposed requirement to report aliases on OF306 (Question 5) because it can cause severe unintended consequences to members of the transgender community and domestic violence survivors. Many transgender people change their name to better align with their gender, and some domestic violence survivors do so in order to protect their identities from their abusers. However, in many states, the process associated with a legal name change can be time consuming, cumbersome and costly, often exceeding $400 in court fees and other expenses. By creating these and other new reporting requirements, OPM is not only undermining the employment prospects of people with records and others who are directly impacted by the reforms, but it is also discouraging well qualified workers from both seeking and accepting employment with the federal government and federal contractors in today’s tight labor market. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Naomi G. Goldberg, MPP Director of Policy & Research Movement Advancement Project |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2623 | Please write your comment here. I support President Trump's Justice Reform done in coordination with Christian pastors and evangelical leaders. Don't mess it up with OPM amendments! Thanks for giving second chances where warranted. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2459 | Please stop the Deep state from over reaching in numerous areas to many to mention. STOP THEM NOW. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2446 | I am in support of President Trump's justice reform please represent my belief's | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2554 | You need to back the president of the United States of America. "Let's make America great again ". Let's roll ! |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2390 | Support President Trump on the Justice Reform. These men and women need a second chance. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0645 | I agree with the expert analysis of Phil Caroom, he having spent years in the criminal justice system. FDW | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2329 | kill every democrat in america black white or brown and all mormon to | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2397 | Stop the regulatory over reach. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2610 | Keep up the good work! I have a question, Mr. President, why has not Obama been deported or locked up since his birth certificate was false and was NOT an American citizen? It seems you should start with him. He did a lot of damage to the USA. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2382 | Please support my president and his agenda. The alternatives can be dire |
|||||
| Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform-Citizen | FedReg, 4-16-19; #0015 | I oppose the change would require applicants for federal jobs to disclose whether they ever have been in a "diversion" programwhether or not any conviction resulted from the charges. Information regarding pretrial diversions short of convictions has little value, since the courts and prosecutors approving such diversions already have evaluated the underlying charges as not serious enough to require further action. Time spent investigating such diversions is poorly spent. Do not enact this change. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2633 | We need Conservative Justice Reforms! |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #0642 | I am convinced this expanded disclosure requirement will waste federal investigators time and, thus, taxpayers funds without gaining significantly useful information. Responding to the specific questions raised by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2) for evaluation of such regulations, here are more specific comments: (i) Is the informationnecessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency [with] practical utility? The answer to this question is no for two reasons: a) Information regarding pretrial diversions short of convictions has little value, since the courts and prosecutors approving such diversions already have evaluated the underlying charges as not serious enough to require further action. b) Therefore, the federal agency resources needed to further pursue information about the underlying circumstances would be poorly allocated. Beyond this, U.S. government policy should encourage and not discourage criminal courts to resolve less serious charges without trial when this is acceptable to all parties. Such a policy will avoid our recent trend towards over-criminalization and reduce criminal justice-related costs to taxpayers. (ii) Has the agencys [correctly estimated] the burden of the proposed collection of information? There might be little burden to collect the answers to the revised question, unless and until the agency was sued. But the real burden isnt tabulating the answers on a form, the real burden comes from the follow-up necessary to make intelligent use of the answers. Per comment (i), the effort necessarily would far exceed the value of charges already deemed not serious enough for prosecution by stakeholders who already have more knowledge. (iii) Would the regulation enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? The answer to this question is no for the same reasons discussed above. The quality of the information would be minimal. Many times, court-imposed conditions may be as trivial as pay the court costs or commit no new offenses within the next two years. Yet, federal investigators could be compelled to spend hours or days of follow-up to verify the years-old information then second-guess prosecutors, judges, and other stakeholders who, with more information, already decided it was not appropriate to pursue charges and to dispose of such matters without criminal convictions based on fuller and fresher information than was available to the federal investigators. If a federal agency simply presumed that an individual probably was guilty of the underlying charges, or that he or she probably has an ongoing character defect that necessitated the diversion, this would violate the U.S. Constitution in more than one way (two examples being presumption of innocence and due process). Actual facts can differ greatly from allegations, and individuals often consent to diversion terms in order to avoid even a slight risk of criminal conviction." Diversion programs have been used by the Maryland courts in sensitive and effective ways. The U.S. government policy should encourage, and not discourage, criminal courts to resolve less serious charges without trial when this is acceptable to all parties. Such a policy will avoid our recent trend towards over-criminalization and reduce criminal justice-related costs to taxpayers. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2484 | Please stop the nonsense against trump. It's gonna be Hillary's turn Soon |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2531 | Please back off tormenting our President and concentrate on helping him do positive things to boost America and Americans !!!Please write your comment here |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2669 | We are in dire need of conservative justice reform. President Trump has been fixing what needs to be fixed and no other president has come anywhere near in excelling as President Trump has in these last three years! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2603 | Please Stand up for all of our great Presidents policies! |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2746 | Both parties, stop ruining our country with you indifference to the Correct ideas of the man we elected to the the job. Our president has the correct ideas, back him up NOW. Start thinking about our nation, instead of your Own selves. Sincerely |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2409 | An Unconstitutional Government has been the contributor of the majority of the crime. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2354 | Can we not stop trying to harm the president unless move this country forward stop all this nonsense just imagine what this country could be with everyone working | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2080 | Any rule that arbitrarily increases the likelihood of an ex-offender returning to crime due to an inability to get a job is a bad law. Pre-trial intervention programs are supposed to prevent the ruin of a life that would be unduly harmed by the punishment for a minor crime. To enforce this rule change would be to force punishment for a crime that the justice department has already determined is a crime unworthy of prosecution. Please prevent this arbitrary double jeopardy scenario from taking place. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2413 | Support and pass President Trump's justice reforms! |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2408 | Get on with the peoples business and stop all of this BS about President Trump |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-10-19; #0016 | I am convinced this expanded disclosure requirement will waste federal investigators time and, thus, taxpayers funds without gaining significantly useful information. Responding to the specific questions raised by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2) for evaluation of such regulations, here are more specific comments: (i) Is the informationnecessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency [with] practical utility? The answer to this question is no for two reasons: a) Information regarding pretrial diversions short of convictions has little value, since the courts and prosecutors approving such diversions already have evaluated the underlying charges as not serious enough to require further action. (ii) Has the agencys [correctly estimated] the burden of the proposed collection of information? There might be little burden to collect the answers to the revised question, unless and until the agency was sued. But the real burden isnt tabulating the answers on a form, the real burden comes from the follow-up necessary to make intelligent use of the answers. Per comment (i), the effort necessarily would far exceed the value of charges already deemed not serious enough for prosecution by stakeholders who already have more knowledge. If a federal agency simply presumed that an individual probably was guilty of the underlying charges, or that he or she probably has an ongoing character defect that necessitated the diversion, this would violate the U.S. Constitution in more than one way (two examples being presumption of innocence and due process). Actual facts can differ greatly from allegations, and individuals often consent to diversion terms in order to avoid even a slight risk of criminal conviction." In sum, this is an UNNECESSARY regulation and DISCRIMINATES against persons WHERE THERE WAS NOT enough evidence to proceed to trial. Thank you |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2463 | As a concerned citizen I want to urge you to put a stop to this regulation on conservative justice reform. This would penalize anyone who has had help for past mistakes. Pres. Trump is trying to give people another chance at their American dream, please do not ruin it . Please write your comment here. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2685 | My preference is to abolish several federal agencies and just have a liaison in the White House. My preference is to abolish government unions at least as to any political role. My preference is that bureaucracies not get to write or flesh out laws or go promulgate regulations without Congressional approval. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2552 | Please let our President do his job, stop trying to destroy our Country |
|||||
| American Civil Liberties Union-Union | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2285 | April 23, 2019 Ms. Donna McLeod, Program Manager National Bureau of Background Investigations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20415 Dear Ms. McLeod: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we write in opposition to the February 22, 2019, proposed changes1 to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306), a form used in federal hiring that is completed by those seeking employment with the federal government and federal contractors. We have particular concerns with the proposal to require prospective employees to disclose their participation in pretrial diversion programs. With more than three million members, activists, and supporters, the ACLU is a nonpartisan public interest organization that fights tirelessly in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC to protect the principles of freedom and equality set forth in the Constitution and in our nation’s civil rights laws. The ACLU is advancing a smart justice strategy that seeks to reduce the number of people and racial disparities reflected in the criminal justice system. Our agenda includes eliminating barriers for those with criminal records and other interactions with the system. Therefore, we strongly object to a federal government inquiry into someone’s participation in a diversion program for hiring purposes. This question presents a needless barrier to employment opportunities with the federal government and federal contractors. 1 84 Fed. Reg. 5733 (Feb. 22, 2019), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/22/2019-03056/submission-for-revision-of-a-previously-approved-information-collection-declaration-for-federal. Pretrial Diversion Should Not be a Barrier to Federal Employment The ACLU strongly objects to amending Question 9 in federal hiring questionnaire OF306, by “add[ing] a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like.”2 Question 9 is currently limited to inquiries around incarceration, probation, and parole, making an admission about diversion a significant departure from the status quo. Diversion programs allow prosecutors to use their discretion to redirect people out of the criminal justice system, allowing them to complete alternative community-based programs that often allow mental health treatment, restitution, or community service. Once a diversion program has been successfully completed, there is no conviction. As the ACLU of Kansas acknowledges in its 2017 report on local diversion programs, “th[is] is especially important,” as “conviction[s] can mean lifetime consequences of unemployment and restricted access to services.”3 A federal hiring inquiry into a person’s participation in a diversion program is inconsistent with the very purpose of such a program. A person participates in a diversion program to avoid the unemployment and other consequences of a criminal record. To be clear, participation in pretrial diversion is not a conviction. With one in three American adults possessing a criminal record,4 accessing the workforce is already difficult for a significant number of people. That access should not be made more difficult by the federal government, which currently employs 2.1 million people.5 Pretrial Diversion Inquiry is Inconsistent with Model Employer Practices The federal government must recognize that the economy and workforce is strengthened when those with criminal records are not excluded from it. Economists estimate that the Unites States loses between $78 and $87 billion dollars’ worth of goods and services by barring those with criminal histories from the workforce.6 Private employers have found that retention rates for those with criminal records are higher than those without. As the ACLU offered in its report, Back to Business, “when companies break down these barriers to employment and provide second chances, they can have a positive impact on the lives of individuals, the trajectory of 2 Id. 3 ACLU of Kansas, CHOOSING INCARCERATION: KANSAS PROSECUTORS’ REFUSAL TO USE DIVERSION AND THE COST TO COMMUNITIES , Dec. 2017 (updated Jan. 2018), https://www.aclukansas.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/choosing_incarceration_-_aclu_report_on_diversion_in_kansas_-_updated_january_2018__0.pdf. 4 ACLU, BACK TO BUSINESS: HOW HIRING FORMERLY INCARCERATED JOB SEEKERS BENEFITS YOUR COMPANY (2017), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/060917-trone-reportweb_0.pdf. 5 CRS, FEDERAL WORKFORCE STATISTICS SOURCES: OPM AND OMB (March 25, 2019), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43590.pdf. 6 ACLU, supra note 4. families, on the health of their businesses, and on the growth of the American economy.”7 This private sector success is realized when companies “ban the box” and eliminate criminal record questions on job applications. The federal government should permanently “ban the box” as congressional efforts like the Fair Chance Act8 would require. The ACLU supports this bipartisan legislation offered by Representatives Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Doug Collins (R-GA) and Senators Corey Booker (D-NJ) and Ron Johnson (R-WI), which requires the federal government and federal contractors to delay criminal history inquiries until a conditional offer of employment has been made. At this point in the hiring process, it would be appropriate for questionnaire OF306 to be offered. However, in inquiring about criminal convictions, a prospective federal employee should not be asked about their participation in a pretrial program. Pretrial diversion participation is not a conviction and should not be considered relevant in evaluating a person’s candidacy for federal employment. Pretrial Diversion Inquiry Will Disproportionately Impact People of Color People of color are disproportionately impacted by criminal background checks for employment because they are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. Almost 50% of Black males will be arrested by the time they are 23 years old in the United States.9 And many arrests never lead to conviction. For example, between 2009 and 2013, just half of adult misdemeanor arrests in New York City resulted in conviction.10 Black males are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white males and 2.5 times more likely than Latino males.11 These statistics suggest that 1 out of 3 Black males and 1 out of 6 Latino males born today will go to prison in their lifetime.12 Even though people of color make up about 30% of the United States’ population, they are 60% of those incarcerated.13 7 Id. 8 H.R. 1076, S. 387 (116th Cong.). 9 Matthew Friedman, Just Facts: As Many Americans Have Criminal Records As College Diplomas, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE (Nov. 17, 2015), https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/just-facts-many-americans-have-criminal-records-college-diplomas. 10 Rebecca Vallas and Sharon Dietrich, ONE STRIKE AND YOU’RE OUT: HOW WE CAN ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO ECONOMIC SECURITY AND MOBILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS, CAP (Dec. 2014), https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/VallasCriminalRecordsReport.pdf. 11 The Sentencing Project, REPORT OF THE SENTENCING PROJECT TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE: REGARDING RACIAL DISPARITIES IN THE UNITED STATES CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (Aug. 2013), https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Race-and-Justice-Shadow-Report-ICCPR.pdf. 12 Id. 13 Sophia Kerby, The Top 10 Most Startling Facts About People of Color and Criminal Justice in the United States, CAP, Mar. 13, 2012, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/. With a disproportionate number of people of color impacted by the criminal justice system, this population will be disproportionately impacted by the federal government’s inquiry into pretrial diversion participation. About 37% of people of color rely on the federal government for employment,14 so an inquiry into pretrial diversion participation may compromise this significant statistic. For example, Black people make up about 12% of the country’s population, but are about 18% of the federal workforce.15 An employment practice that disproportionately impacts employees of color is inconsistent with the protections provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.16 In this instance, a federal hiring inquiry into pretrial diversion participation will disproportionately impact people of color, creating conflict with Title VII. Therefore, the federal government should refrain from requiring such a disclosure. Thank you for considering these concerns with the proposed changes to the Office of Personnel Management’s Declaration for Federal Employment Form (OF306). If you have any questions, please contact Kanya Bennett, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel, at [email protected]. Sincerely, Ronald Newman Kanya Bennett National Political Director Senior Legislative Counsel |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2331 | to the regular people the Left view of what is happing is not reflecting in actual fact.....real life..... so I know you do now want Trump to win.... but we the people are wining... |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2608 | Please write your comment here. Everything my PRESIDENT TRUMP turns his attention to turns to GOLD!!! My beloved President Trump has and is saving our lives and we love him for this. #Where we go one we go all. |
|||||
| Americans For Prosperity-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2280 | What extraordinary hypocrisy! To even imagine that somehow the Federal Government has now, or expects in the future, to hire only people of "uncharged" social standing is to engage in self-serving delusion by institutional blindness. In fact, even the proposed adoption of such is testimony that those supporting need to have their boxes checked for moral and emotional balance. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #1911 | Please help this cause |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2632 | i believe that having conservative justice reforms is essential to giving people a second chance at redemption where appropriate. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2744 | Do the job you were elected to do. To uphold the Constitution and to protect the citizenry of the United States of America. Quit protecting the law breakers! I'm the daughter of an immigrant, first generation. My father adhered to the laws of this land. It's appalling how the Democrats are subverting the law! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2601 | For over 3 yrs. America has witnessed complete harrassment and obstruction of President Trump and his Administration. It will not STOP so all we can say is TRUMP 2020!!! GOD BLESS... |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2368 | Trump 2020!! |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2406 | Wake up and support ourPresident and stop trying to block everything he is trying to do to improve our country. He has done amazing things for this country and us and in spite of jealous people like you who don't seem to care about our country and her people. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2553 | Please support President Trump in conservative justice reforms. Thank youl |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2630 | Do not touch the positive things President Trump has done just because you don't like him, what he's done has made it better for of us, I wish would stop to see that. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-16-19; #0008 | I am very concerned that we also compile a list of primary school children sent to the Principals office. These early signs of willful disobedience must surely bode ill for our country. Seriously? When we supposedly want a SMALLER government, with LESS intrusion into our lives, do Washington bureaucrats have brain-storming sessions on how they can wastefully spend our tax money? Please spend my money on things like health care and food for the MANY people with food insecurities. |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2743 | I back PRESIDENT Trump 100% |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2599 | As a voter, a citizen and someone who has seen what a broken criminal justice system is capable of doing AND as someone who is 100% for the Criminal Justice Reform bill that our President has recently signed, I am writing to urge you to do all in your power to support this reform bill and NOT undermine either the letter or the spirit of the reform act through counterproductive regulations that ultimately could undermine the bill. | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2443 | Protect President Trumps conservative justice reforms.Please write your comment here. |
|||||
| TwoPalms Enterprises-Citizen | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2079 | I strongly oppose the proposed requirement for job applicants to "admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like." This proposed requirement would penalize young, minor, nonviolent offenders for no benefit to the federal government. Requiring applicants to admit any pretrial intervention or diversionary program would undermine the purpose of these programs, which is to give people a second chance for minor offenses. We should make it easier for those with criminal histories to get jobs, especially youthful offenders who committed minor infractions. This proposed change is a big step in the wrong direction. Thank you. James S. Whitehead |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2460 | If you want socialism, leave America. Don't come here to bring Islam. Stay in an Islamic country.DO NOT bring in illegals for Americans to take care of.Deport ALL of them, and send the Democrats with them!!!!! | |||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2581 | Please support our elected president. Thank You Sincerely Cole Johnson |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedReg, 4-24-19; #2576 | Please do the right thing and support President Trumps efforts as our President. |
|||||
| American Conservative Union Foundation - Professional Organization | FedReg, 4-23-19; #2231 | April 22, 2019 Via Electronic Submission Ms. Donna McLeod National Background Investigations Bureau Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20415 Re: Comment Regarding Notice 84 FR 5733 Additional Information Collection - Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306 Dear Ms. McLeod: The American Conservative Union Foundation Center’s Nolan Center for Justice (“ACUF”) respectfully submits this comment regarding the Notice posted at 84 FR 5733, in which the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) proposes to change Question 9 of the Declaration for Federal Employment Optional Form (OF) 306 (“OF306”). Our organization has significant concerns about the proposed change. ACUF supports policies that facilitate re-entry for justice-involved persons. Doing so is not out of charity alone. Once an offender has paid his/her debt to society, reintegration into the community is substantially related to finding meaningful employment.1 Enhancing appropriate work opportunities for justice-involved individuals correlates directly to successful re-entry, reduced recidivism, and improved public safety returns on criminal justice spending. 1 John McNally, Susan Lockwood, Taiping Ho and Katie Knutson, Post-Release Recidivism and Employment Among Different Types of Release Offenders: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study in the United States, Official Journal of the South Asian Society of Criminology and Victimology, June 2014 (Results of this 5-year follow-up study clearly indicated that employment was as an effective buffer for reducing recidivism among justice-involved individuals), found at: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/nallyetalijcjs2014vol9issue1.pdf. 2 The converse is also true. Policies that stigmatize those caught up in the criminal justice system reduce the likelihood of successful re-entry and increase the risk of further encounters with law enforcement. In short, being branded in this way makes it more difficult for such people to find jobs and stay on the straight and narrow. In the Notice dated February 22, 2019, OPM announced: OPM is proposing to add a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like. These programs allow individuals to agree to comply with specific conditions in lieu of criminal prosecution and upon compliance, to have the charge(s) dismissed. They are generally available to those accused of committing a wide range of offenses. The offender is not commonly placed into traditional community supervision and participants or those who successfully complete the program, are not considered to have been convicted. The proposed change closes a gap for those who participate in or successfully complete this type of alternative disposition and may not have to answer affirmatively to the current question and report the details of the offense. This change has the potential to further stigmatize justice-involved individuals – even when they have no conviction on their criminal record and have successfully completed a pre-trial diversion program. If, indeed, that is the case, then the proposed modification of OF306 would not only foreclose federal employment opportunities for those who have successfully completed a diversion program, it would deny the Executive Branch a significant source of talent and human capital. Our concerns are not without merit. Data suggest that justice-involved individuals have a 50% reduced likelihood of being called back for further consideration during the interview process.2 Paradoxically, data also indicate that people who complete pre-trial diversion programs have a statistically significant and lower recidivism rate when compared to a sample group not diverted.3 2 Devah Pager, Bruce Western and Naomi Sugie, Sequencing Disadvantage: Barriers to Employment Facing Young Black and White Men with Criminal Records, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 2009 May; 623(1): 195–213, (A criminal record reduces the likelihood of a callback or job offer by nearly 50 percent), found at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583356/. 3 United States Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Department’s Use of Pretrial Diversion and Diversion-Based Court Programs as Alternatives to Incarceration, June 2016, found at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1619.pdf. While this was an initial study with a small sample, it is consistent with other studies. See, e.g., Center for Health and Justice Study, No Entry: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion 3 We are concerned that requiring disclosure of pre-trial diversion will result in applicants being precluded from federal employment opportunities, despite successfully completing such programs. This result would be inconsistent with policies developed by the White House and Congress to reform the nation’s criminal justice system. Indeed, a significant component of recently-enacted legislation known as the First Step Act is intended to facilitate re-entry as a means of reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety. Nevertheless, we recognize that there are unique national security implications attendant to this issue. In particular, OF306 is used not only to gather basic background history and determine eligibility for federal employment, but also to assess the vulnerability of applicants to blackmail and the applicant’s candor. In attempting to balance these considerations, we remain concerned that – without proper guidance from OPM – the proposed change to Question 9 of OF306 will result in significant numbers of candidates being rejected for employment. This outcome would be ironic, since the completion of a diversion program results in no criminal conviction on the applicant’s record and is evidence of rehabilitation. As such, if OPM determines that the proposed change to Question 9 is necessary, we urge that the following limitations or enhancements be set forth: (1) Modified Question 9 should be used only for the purposes of assessing suitability for a national security clearance and candor (as opposed to general eligibility for federal employment); Programs and Initiatives, December 2013 (Pre-trial diversion participants are nine times less likely to be admitted to a state prison after graduation than those who do not (3 vs 28%)), found at: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdf; Brandon Kooi and Christine Devitt Westley, Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Low Recidivism Rate in Kane County Diversion Program, May, 2015 (Ninety-two percent of those who successfully completed the Kane County Diversion Program did not return to the criminal justice system, compared to a success rate for traditional prosecutions of between 40-6-%), found at: http://saopublic.co.kane.il.us/News%20Releases/2015-05-05%20Study%20shows%20low%20recidivism%20rate%20in%20Kane%20diversion%20program.pdf. 4 (2) If an applicant has successfully completed pre-trial diversion resulting in no criminal conviction related to the underlying conduct, merely answering in the affirmative should not be cited as the primary reason for denial of either a clearance or federal employment. (3) As part of Question 9, the applicant should have a full opportunity to provide context regarding the incident(s) giving rise to the pre-trial diversion. (4) Absent other indicia suggesting questions of honesty or character, the completion of a pre-trial diversion program should be considered prima facie evidence of rehabilitation. Without these clarifications, the proposed revision to OF306 Question 9 will undermine the President’s criminal justice agenda and prejudice those who have completed pretrial diversion. If, however, such protections are put in place, OPM can mitigate the impact of the revised language on those who have completed a diversion program, while still providing data necessary to safeguard our national security. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at the American Conservative Union Foundation at (202) 347-9388. Sincerely, David H. Safavian, Esq. General Counsel The American Conservative Union Foundation |
|||||
| Public-Citizen | FedRegs; 3-21-19 | This proposal would greatly expand background checks and would negatively affect persons seeking federal employment who are trying to improve their lives and society. The significant language in this proposal is “[the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)] is proposing to add a requirement to admit charges for which one has been placed into a pretrial intervention or diversionary program or the like. These programs allow individuals to agree to comply with specific conditions in lieu of criminal prosecution and upon compliance, to have the charge(s) dismissed. They are generally available to those accused of committing a wide range of offenses. The offender is not commonly placed into traditional community supervision and participants or those who successfully complete the program, are not considered to have been convicted. The proposed change closes a gap for those who participate in or successfully complete this type of alternative disposition and may not have to answer affirmatively to the current question and report the details of the offense.” Requiring persons to explain their participation in pretrial diversion programs would negatively affect those trying to rehabilitate themselves and would be contrary to the purpose of pretrial diversion programs. Pretrial diversion programs are designed to provide mediation or rehabilitation to the accused as an alternative to prosecution for the alleged offenses. Eligible participants must be a first-time offender and the crime must have been a misdemeanor. Persons subject to these programs are often supervised and must complete requirements, such as drug classes, community service, and pay fines, within a certain period of time. Upon successful completion of the program, the status of the charges are eligible for expungement. Pretrial diversion programs provide defendants the opportunity to avoid conviction and to remain productive members of society. The White House explained that this proposal closes a gap that allowed applicants to withhold participation in a pretrial diversion program on the questions related to whether the applicant is currently under any charges of the law. The Trump Administration’s bare explanation makes sense because there is no other one. Diversionary programs help first time offenders of misdemeanors avoid the stigma that comes with a conviction. The program provides successful participants with a second chance. This proposal requiring applicants to detail their participation in these programs would negatively affect their employment opportunities and would hinder their ability to be a lawful, productive member of society. This proposal would also be contrary to the Trump Administration and many cities and counties’ efforts to give people a second chance as it relates to employment. President Trump recently signed the First Step Act which is a comprehensive criminal justice reform statute. According to the Marshall Project, the First Step Act “includes reductions to mandatory minimum sentence lengths, adds millions of dollars in new funding for job training, expands the impact of a past law that shrinks the disparity between punishments for crack and cocaine offenses and offers incentives for prisoners to earn more time in halfway houses through rehabilitation programs.”[1] This shows that the Trump Administration favors rehabilitating offenders so that they can contribute in the workforce. Additionally, over 150 cities and counties in thirty-three states[1] have passed laws that restrict an employer’s ability to ask questions relating to the applicant’s criminal background. On the state level, California “prohibits public and private employers in the state from asking applicants if they have completed diversion.”[1] In other areas of the country, there has been a movement towards “ban the box.” This campaign seeks to remove an employer’s ability to check applicants criminal background altogether. In line with the present shift and the Trump Administration’s goal to remove barriers to employment, this proposal should not be carried out. By introducing a requirement that applicant’s report whether they are in a diversionary program, productive members of society will be excluded from the workforce because employers will be reluctant to consider them as a good candidate. The animus in this proposed rule is also clear with the addition of the following: “The Background Information instructions were amended to reflect a higher traffic fines reporting threshold and reads `traffic fines of $1,000 or less' from `traffic fines of $300 or less.” It is clear that this proposed rule will negatively affect the public because it will decrease the number of qualified applicants. An employer’s wish to understand an applicant’s criminal background is understandable. But, to go a step further, by requiring applicant’s to explain their involvement in a pretrial diversion program would dissuade qualified applicants from applying and would dissuade employers from hiring qualified applicants. Additionally, the proposal is contrary to the purpose of these diversionary program: to give defendants a second chance. This proposal would be counterproductive and would hinder the job market. |
1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedRegs; 3-21-19 | It makes no sense to allow extended background checks for employers. This policy would discriminate against people who have already been judged fit to remain part of society through diversion programs keeping them out of prison. This goes against the values underlying the FIRST STEP Act as well. | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedRegs; 3-21-19 | It would make sense to begin this process at the TOP. If the rules and regulations are going to be changed there should be accountability for every federal employee or contractor who have ever used a diversionary program to avoid jail and or prison and has thrived from the use of such program. Of course the government should screen for security purposes however, what the government intends to do with that information in moving forward will be inconsistent with the creation and implementation of diversionary programs. How many government employees beginning at the top have taken advantage of diversionary programs. What should be happening is the creation of forgiveness programs for those who have (certain offenses) criminal blemishes in their history after serving prison time, paying their fines and completing probation and or parole. What about those who have shown that they want to be forgiven for bad choices that have exacted a heavy toll on their lives such as but not limited to shame, guilt, ruined families and communities. What about them? | 1 | ||||
| Public-Citizen | FedRegs; 3-21-19 | Information regarding whether an applicant has "been subject to judge or court specified conditions requiring satisfactory completion before a criminal charge has been or will be dismissed;" is not needed or required and can be construed as an unnecessary burden on a applicant who has satisfactorily fulfilled completed the conditions and thus will not carry a charge. The idea is to broaden the scope of appropriate applicants. Over 70 million citizens have gone through the criminal justice system and these are the ones most in need of employment, yet for whom employment is usually not available. | 1 | ||||
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 0000-00-00 |