1. The City of Philadelphia Prison System John F. Street, Esq. Mayor Leon A. King, II, Esq. Commissioner

2. Public Safety There is no longer any debate about what is effective in improving public safety.

3. Public Safety There is no longer any debate about what is effective in improving public safety. There is, however, considerable debate about what is politically acceptable to reduce the risk of re-offending.

4. Public Safety There is no longer any debate about what is effective in improving public safety. There is, however, considerable debate about what is politically acceptable to reduce the risk of re-offending. But, if we know what will improve public safety, it is an obligation to make it happen.

5. Misconceptions Longer sentences result in reduced criminal activity. Being tough-on crime is always effective. Being soft-on crime is more humane than being hard on crime. “Nothing works”, “incarceration deters crime”, “harsh jail conditions deter crime”, “ex-offenders are responsible for high crime rates” and “our crime laws are perfect.” Most inmates are violent and every returning offender is dangerous.

6. A Snap Shot of 15,000 PPS Inmates’ Most Serious Charges over 6 months in FY 06

7. Why We Can’t Rely on Incarceration Incarceration has been estimated to be responsible for about a 5-20% reduction in criminal activity at present. Other research found a 10% increase in incarceration yields a 1.6-3.1% reduction in crime; this is short-sighted and clearly not efficient. However, in the long-term, 95% of all inmates are released, and the risk of offending for ex-offenders is 20-50 times greater than non-offenders. This occurs for several reasons: A criminal record impedes prospects for future employment, housing and educational opportunities; these are risk factors for later criminal activity. Criminogenic behaviors and attitudes are learned while incarcerated; this is a risk factor for non-serous/violent criminals. The increased resources on incarceration leads to decreased resources for other, more effective public safety interventions, and publicly funded services. With increases in persons incarcerated, the deterrent effect of incarceration decreases; for some, incarceration is a right of passage.

8. Our Inconvenient Truth Law enforcement and crime prevention are not always the same.

9. Our Inconvenient Truth Law enforcement and crime prevention are not always the same. This is the law of unintended consequences.

10. Our Inconvenient Truth Law enforcement and crime prevention are not always the same. This is the law of unintended consequences. Three such cases: housing, jobs and educational possibilities. Each are affected by current background-check legislation.

11. Unintended Consequences

14. The bottom line is that we need to ask… “What will it take to keep released offenders from committing crime after incarceration?”

15. The Outcome of Risk Reduction Interventions With no intervention

16. The Outcome of Risk Reduction Interventions With housing intervention

17. The Outcome of Risk Reduction Interventions With housing & jobs interventions

18. The Outcome of Risk Reduction Interventions With housing, jobs & criminal mindset interventions

19. The Outcome of Risk Reduction Interventions With housing, jobs & criminal mindset interventions We will never have 0% recidivism or 0% crime, but we can decrease the risk of re-offending and improve public safety.

20. Ex-offender background checks are, at present, one of the “tough- on crime” approaches. With respects to housing, ex-offender checks are an approach used to help keep certain offenders away from potential victims. With respects to employment, ex-offender checks may also be necessary to keep some offenders from harming employees or others from stealing from the employer. With respects to educational opportunities, ex-offenders are precluded from many sources of funding. However, this legislation has unintended consequences and it is, therefore, incomplete. Ex-Offender Background Check

21. The current ex-offender background check legislation has three primary problems with it: 1.It does not make provisions for reducing subsequent risk of criminal reoffending associated with ex- offenders’ increased impediments finding housing, employment or educational opportunities. 2.It is not supported by the evidence in that lifetime bans for all convictions is not consistent with the fact that desistance in criminal offending occurs overtime. 3.Only about 10% of young offenders actually go onto a lifetime of crime, while 100% have a criminal record.

22. Ex-Offender Background Check The evidence supports the notion that legislative provisions can reduce the criminal risks associated with difficulty in finding housing, jobs and education. This can be accomplished on two levels.

23. Ex-Offender Background Check We could improve public safety by reducing the risks of re-offending with, Two Possibilities: 1.Legislative provisions that assist or require jobs, housing and educational opportunities for returning offenders upon release. 2.Legislation at the state and local level that seals or expunges the criminal record of some criminals (but excludes some such as the violent or predatory) who have not been involved with any criminal activity for at least seven years from their last offense.

24. Ex-Offender Background Check We could improve public safety by reducing the risks of re-offending with, Two Possibilities: 1.Legislative provisions that assist or require jobs, housing and educational opportunities for returning offenders upon release. 2.Legislation at the state and local level that seals or expunges the criminal record of some criminals (but excludes some such as the violent or predatory) who have not been involved with any criminal activity for at least seven years from their last offense. This research was done using police arrest data on 13,000 Philadelphians.

25. Ex-Offender Background Check Ex-offender background checks are intended to be a public safety tool. However, for offenders, they are a constant punishment, even after a full sentence has been served. This increases the risk of reoffending. For employers concerned about re-offending, because a criminal record offers vanishingly little relevant information once a critical period has passed, but for the violent and predatory offenders, why keep the additional risk factor for those who were petty offenders?

26. Ex-Offender Background Check A concept already in use: Many auto insurance companies clear driving records after 3 years. Credit records are expunged after 7 years of maintaining a clean record. A federal statue on background checks for hazmat truckers limits the use of criminal history records in hiring since 7 years since the time of conviction. And! 17 states allow certain convictions, such misdemeanor offenses, to be expunged or sealed, often for first-time offenders. At the local and state level, by eliminating the barriers to housing, jobs and education, sealing or expunging the criminal record of some* ex-offenders reduces risk of criminal re-offending. *Example: the non-violent and non-predatory, and other petty criminals

27. Ex-Offender Background Check Provisions that secure housing, jobs education for released offenders decrease the risk of reoffending by giving former offenders a stake in society. Provisions that seal or expunge certain types * of former offenders’ record after seven years decreases the risks of reoffending by making it easier to be a self-sustaining citizen. *Example: the non-violent and non-predatory, and other petty criminals

28. Ex-Offender Background Check At present, existing legislation makes it difficult for offenders to become up-right citizens. But it need not be this way. With careful deliberation of unintended consequences and thoughtful crime policy, legislation can directly reduce the risk of criminal re-offending.

29. Public Safety We know what works, we know what doesn’t work, and we know what reduces crime risks. There is no debate among the experts about what is effective in improving public safety. So, if we knows what will improve public safety, it is an obligation to make it happen.