Skip navigation

Access Denied in Oregon Partnership for Safety and Justice Oct 2006

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
ACCESS

DENIED
in Oregon

A Report on the
Barriers Faced by
People with a Past
Felony Conviction

Partnership for Safety and Justice

Partnership for Safety and Justice:
Originally founded in 1999 as the Western Prison Project, Partnership for
Safety and Justice advocates for a criminal justice system that is just and that
more effectively creates the types of safe communities we want to live in. We
unite those most affected by crime, violence, and the criminal justice system to
redirect policies and resources away from an over-reliance on incarceration toward
effective strategies that reduce crime and increase community safety.
Access Denied in Oregon was produced as part of our Beyond Barriers program.
Beyond Barriers focuses on eliminating the civil and social barriers formerly
incarcerated people experience. The program helps create a society that better
supports the successful transition of people returning to the community from
prison and jail so that we can all live in safer communities.
Access Denied in Oregon is available on our website.

For Additional Copies Or More Information, Contact:
Partnership for Safety and Justice
P.O. Box 40085
Portland, OR 97240
(503) 335-8449
www.safetyandjustice.org
Written by David Rogers
Research by Brent Canode

Design by YellowHat Studios

introduction
The United States now incarcerates over 2.2 million people, more than
any other country in the world. This means that one out of every 136
people in the U.S. is currently in jail or prison.i The astronomical
growth of incarceration in the U.S. over the past 25 years has created a
wide range of social challenges, not least of which is how to respond to
formerly incarcerated people upon their re-entry into the community.
More than 650,000 people are released from state and federal prisons
every year, and millions more leave local jails.ii The transition back into
the community is far from welcoming for most returning prisoners.
Formerly incarcerated people are stigmatized and stereotyped, and face
a range of laws and policies that undermine their ability to become
active and productive citizens.
Is it society’s responsibility to mitigate the challenges experienced by
former prisoners when they transition back into society? Although
some people may quickly answer no, the cost of not developing
better systems of support is far too great, both in terms of the human
toll and the cost to the public when people fail and then return to
prison. Supporting the successful re-entry of formerly incarcerated
people reduces recidivism, increases public safety, and helps lower the
skyrocketing cost of incarceration.
Successful re-entry is difficult, in part, because of a wide range of
civil barriers that reduce opportunities for people with a past felony
conviction. Unless you are a formerly incarcerated person, or a family
member or friend of a former prisoner, the real struggles associated
with transitioning back into the community from prison are probably
quite unfamiliar. This report is designed to provide a glimpse into some
of the existing challenges.
In 2005, Partnership for Safety and Justice (then known as Western
Prison Project) began an intentional exploration of the range of civil
barriers formerly incarcerated people face. We realized that not nearly
enough attention is being paid to this critical set of issues. We began
this project by surveying 384 formerly incarcerated people about
their experiences transitioning back into the community. We also
conducted two focus groups, one with formerly incarcerated people
and one with people who have had a family member incarcerated.
Focus group participants identified the issues they felt are most critical
to successful re-entry. We then conducted research to identify the legal
and administrative barriers facing people with felony convictions in
Oregon in areas such as housing and employment. This is by no means
a comprehensive overview of the roadblocks to re-entry after prison.
Rather, this report is designed to share some of the information we have
collected with an emphasis on the key barriers identified by our survey
and focus group participants.

More than
650,000 people
are released from
prisons every
year and the
transition back
to the community
is far from
welcoming for
most returning
prisoners

Summary Findings
Supporting

Formerly incarcerated people and people with felony convictions
experience a range of civil barriers that make it harder to find stable
employment and housing. There are a number of policies that could help
dismantle these roadblocks to re-entry in Oregon:

the successful
re-entry of

1) The standard practice of releasing state prisoners back to the
county in which they were convicted should be re-examined.
When possible, release location should be based on an assessment
of where someone has the strongest community of support and the
best chance of finding stable housing and employment.

formerly
incarcerated

2) The state should consider legislation that prevents employers from
refusing job applicants solely on the basis of arrest or conviction
history, and offer a set of standards and practices that encourage
employers to make individualized decisions about people with
criminal records. By initially eliminating people with conviction or
arrest records from job applicant pools, people who may be highly
qualified for certain jobs get screened out to the disadvantage of
the employer, the individual job applicants, and the community.

people reduces
recidivism,
increases public
safety, and

3) Arrest records that never lead to a conviction should not be
publicly available or used to make employment and housing
decisions. The presumption of innocence is a core principle of
our justice system and upholds the American value of fairness.
This fairness should be extended to housing and employment
considerations.

helps lower the
skyrocketing cost
of incarceration

4) Having a valid driver’s license or official state identification is
often a requirement for acquiring a job, a checking account,
housing, and services. The Department of Corrections should
better assist prisoners in acquiring the official documentation and
identification necessary for their success when released.
5) It is a common practice for people with drug related convictions
to have their licenses revoked or suspended as part of their
sentence, even when the crime was not driving-related. Legislation
that restricts that practice would help people maintain access to
essential identification and mobility when released—factors that
support an individual’s ability to find housing, employment, and
stay connected to their families.
6) Housing is a critical factor for successful re-entry. Unfortunately,
there is simply not enough housing available for formerly
incarcerated people returning to the community. Increasing
funding to expand transition and re-entry housing is a common
sense approach to public safety.

2

Employment
“I was recruited to apply for a temporary county job by a county
staff person who knows me. She felt like my background made me
incredibly qualified for the position. The county contracts with a
temp agency to manage the payroll for all the county’s temporary
workers. I filled out the temp agency’s paperwork which included a
question about conviction history, which I answered honestly. Soon
after, the temp agency told the county department that they would
not manage my contract because I have a felony record. Well, county staff knew about my record and didn’t feel like it was relevant.
Nevertheless, I lost that job opportunity which paid $20 an hour
and might have led to a permanent position. I believe there is now
a push within that county to hire a different temp agency because of
my situation, which is a step in the right direction, but that doesn’t
help me put food on the table.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has
interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment
policies that exclude individuals solely on the basis of their criminal
conviction records. While Title VII doesn’t directly spell out
protections for persons with felony convictions, the EEOC has
determined that discriminating on the basis of criminal conviction
records has a disparate impact on people of color, and is therefore
a discriminatory practice. However, a person’s criminal record
can be considered if the employer can demonstrate a business
necessity for doing so. But if employers ask, they must ask everyone.
Selectively inquiring about criminal convictions can be grounds for a
discrimination complaint against the employer.iii

Have you ever been
denied employment
because of your
criminal record?
Of the 364 people
who responded to
this question, 77.2%
answered “yes.”

In spite of the EEOC interpretation of the Civil Rights Act regarding
hiring practices, there are a number of federal, state, and local laws that
prohibit the hiring of individuals with certain felony convictions.

Not Just Convictions Pose a Barrier to Employment:
Oregon is one of a number of states that allow employers to consider
arrest records in a hiring process. This unnecessary and unfair
employment practice has the negative effect of greatly expanding the
pool of people facing barriers to employment. Conversations with
workforce development staff confirmed that more and more employers
are starting to take advantage of this practice, requiring applicants to
list any and all convictions and arrests.
It is easy to see how the admission of a prior arrest, even one that didn’t
lead to a criminal conviction, could still taint a job application. This
inequity in the law is ripe for change. Massachusetts and other states
have passed laws that prohibit employers from asking prospective
applicants about arrest information that did not lead to a criminal
conviction.

77.2%

3

Occupation-based Barriers to Employment:

For many people
who have worked
hard to turn their
lives around, all

With greater public awareness of the possibility of identity theft, and a
heightened domestic security environment, we are likely to see a greater
proliferation of vocation-based exclusionary hiring practices. These laws
and policies have the effect of further limiting employment options for
many individuals with felony convictions.
Oregon law allows certain professional groups with licensure requirements
latitude in considering past convictions as a criteria for acceptance.

they need is the

ORS (Oregon Revised Statute) 670.280 says a licensing board, commission or agency may not deny, suspend or revoke an occupational or
professional license solely for the reason that the applicant or licensee
has been convicted of a crime, but it may consider the relationship of
the facts which support the conviction and all intervening circumstances to the specific occupational or professional standards in determining the fitness of the person to receive or hold the license.

opportunity to
tell their story in
an interview

The list of professional and occupational associations and boards that can
legally bar an individual with specific felony convictions from working
in Oregon is long. Here is a partial list: engineers and land surveyors,
dentists, veterinarians, cosmetologists, real estate agents, construction
contractors, clinical social workers, and occupational therapists.
According to Oregon statute, other specific professions, like teaching,
can totally bar people from employment based on the presence of certain
felony convictions.iv The list of felony convictions that bar an individual
from employment as a licensed teacher in Oregon totals over 40 different
felonies, running the gamut from person-to-person crimes to drug
possession to prostitution.
Although certain convictions may be pertinent to some hiring decisions,
particularly in jobs that work with vulnerable populations, the overly
broad extent of existing employment barriers is unnecessary and
counterproductive. Take the case of a woman who ten years ago turned
to prostitution because of poverty and domestic violence and was arrested
and convicted. Imagine that now this same woman has worked hard to
get her life back on track, including successfully getting out of her abusive
relationship. She has a long history of community volunteerism, works
with youth, and completed school with academic success. Should we
really deny this person the ability to become a teacher because of a past
prostitution conviction? The civil barriers faced by this woman suggest
that even after paying any criminal penalties (such as jail or prison time,
fines, restitution, etc.), the “punishment” for her crime never ends.
Employment barriers are a slippery slope. Too often, businesses develop
hiring practices that screen out qualified applicants based on conviction

4

history alone. This creates a dilemma for many people with felony
convictions. If you tell the truth and check the box that acknowledges
a conviction (or even an arrest) record, then chances are you will never
get an interview--no matter what you have done to get your life back
on track, or how qualified you might be. Yet, if you lie and don’t check
the box, you could begin an important relationship based an act of
dishonesty.
People in our focus groups spoke about their disappointment and
frustration with how hard it is to break through that initial job
screening. For many people who have worked hard to turn their
lives around, all they need is the opportunity to tell their story in an
interview and their sincerity and potential will shine through. Too
many people never get that chance.

Housing
“Our son went to Oregon State Penitentiary. While in prison he
went to school and got his GED while there were still programs like
that available. Now he is out; he can’t find a job. He stays with us.
The family is trying to help him, and it is hard on us. ... Renting...
they’re always turning him down for an apartment. It torments
your mind. When is it going to let up? I wish somebody would give
people a chance.”

Private Housing:
Oregon law outlines clear protections for certain groups of individuals
accessing housing in the private market, but the law provides no
protection for persons with felony convictions. It is at the discretion of
private landlords and property managers to rent or not rent to people
with felony records, with one exception.

Have you ever been
denied housing
because of your
criminal record?
Of the 367 people
who responded to
this question, 57.2%
answered “yes.”

The Federal Fair Housing Act and its reasonable accommodation
prescriptions provide certain protections for some individuals with
criminal records. The litmus test is whether or not a criminal
conviction is tied to a federally recognized disability. According to the
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, the Fair Housing
Act “defines persons with a disability to mean those individuals
with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit one or
more major life activity. The term mental or physical impairment
may include conditions such as....alcoholism, and drug addiction.”v
Therefore, the most common conviction tied to a disability
accommodation would be drug possession (but not manufacturing or
selling) if it was the result of addiction.

57.2%

5

Public and Federally Subsidized Housing:
Section 8 and Public Housing are two separate housing programs funded
by the federal government and administered by local government housing
agencies (for example, the Housing Authority of Portland). Section 8
serves those with very low incomes, while Public Housing serves more
moderately low income people.
Federal policies suggest that local housing authorities “may deny” access to
Section 8 assistance to anyone convicted of the following charges within
the last three years:vi
•
•
•
•
•

As it becomes
harder to
house formerly

Illegal drug use
Violent criminal activity
Methamphetamine production
Sex offenses
A variety of Public Housing related crimes

Public Housing is governed by an even more restrictive set of policies
and does not provide local housing authorities with discretion. There is a
long list of convictions that automatically deny access if the convictions
fall within a corresponding tiered timeline of the last 3 years, 7 years, and
lifetime history.vii The list is so extensive that most people with felony
convictions are simply not eligible for Public Housing.

incarcerated
people, society
forces people to

Housing and employment were the two issues that people identified as the
most important factors leading to successful re-entry into the community.
Yet, stable housing is incredibly hard to come by. The two most likely
sources of support in this area are family and non-profit-run housing
specifically designed to support the transition of formerly incarcerated
people.

become homeless

Public attitudes are a growing barrier to addressing the lack of transitional
housing. Even as community based organizations successfully develop
the resources and plans to create re-entry housing, local residents give in
to fear and stereotypes and embrace a “not in my backyard” perspective,
which leads to organized resistance. The implications of this intolerance
are severe. As it becomes harder and harder to house formerly incarcerated
people, society forces people to become homeless. The instability and
severity of being homeless encourages a return to addiction and crime,
negatively affecting public safety.

6

Licenses, Identification, Court Fees and Fines
This section deals with a complex set of problems that, when experienced
individually, are challenging enough, but these issues also interlink in
debilitating ways. Having a valid driver’s license and identification is
often a requirement for acquiring a job, a checking account, housing, and
services. Yet many people have their driver’s licenses taken away for nondriving related crimes or for not paying court fees and fines. When money
and employment are necessary for regaining a license, people become
trapped in a situation that’s sometimes near impossible to fix.
It has become standard practice for judges to suspend licenses for nonmotor vehicle related crimes like drug possession. Additionally, even if a
person’s license was valid when they entered prison, it has often expired
when they are released. Gaining access to valid identification upon release
is a significant barrier with wide-ranging negative effects.

Did you lose your
license as a result
of your felony
conviction?
Of the 363 people
who responded to
this question, 47.1%
answered “yes.”

In 2005, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) began to accept
Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) -issued “release ID cards”
as an accepted form of identification, but only if DOC has verified the
person’s identification before their release. Surprisingly, DOC can not
officially verify a person’s identity unless DOC is presented with some
of the same documents that the DMV requires as primary documents.
To make matters more difficult, DOC provides little assistance to people
under their custody in acquiring verified identification. This loophole
renders the exchange policy between DOC and DMV practically useless,
and does little to help people easily receive valid identification shortly
upon their release.

47.1%

The irony that DOC can not “verify” the identification of people they
have been incarcerating is not lost on prisoners and former prisoners.
Because valid identification is so critical to the success of former prisoners
when they return to the community, DOC should develop stronger
procedures to assist prisoners in acquiring the necessary documentation
and identification before their release.
Additionally, many formerly incarcerated people have had their license
suspended because of failure to pay court fees and fines. Court fees
and fines were identified as a real challenge during re-entry into the
community. There is an expectation that people begin paying court
fees and fines immediately upon release despite having no immediate
employment. Parole and probation officers have the ability to help
facilitate payment plans, although the practice of doing so is at their
discretion and is inconsistently applied.
In 2003, the Oregon legislature passed HB 2263, which prohibited the
Department of Motor Vehicles from issuing hardship permits to people
with suspended licenses because of failure to appear or failure to pay back
fees and fines with no exceptions. It was thought that more stringent

233 people surveyed
ranked paying
court fees and fines
(including supervision
fees) as “a major
difficulty” when
transitioning back into
the community.

7

punishment would ensure people paid their fees and fines and show up
at court. Our research suggests that since that bill passed, the number of
related license suspensions has remained the same. One state employee
replied upon our inquiry, “how on earth are these people supposed to get
to and from work to pay their fines and fees if they don’t have access to a
hardship permit for a driver’s license? It’s like cutting a person’s legs off to
compel them to run a marathon. It doesn’t make any sense.”

“When I was
released, they
put me in a hotel
downtown in the

prison and jail release practices

middle of drug
activity. I had a
support system I
couldn’t use and
felt ... set up to go

“When I spoke to the team of people in charge of my daughter’s transition from prison, they told me that she had to be released to the county
where she was arrested, even though there was no family support or
county re-entry services available. They planned to release her at 7:00
a.m. with no money, no bus ticket, and she was expected to report to
the parole and probation office in another county by 1:00 p.m. that
day. Perhaps the worst of it was that the only place they had identified
she might stay involved sleeping in a parking lot. How is that acceptable?”
“The release was a problem. I couldn’t go back to my home because my
partner was a former felon (there is restricted contact between people
with felony convictions) even though we had been together for 15
years, and she was doing fine....When I was released, they put me in a
hotel downtown in the middle of drug activity. I had a support system
I couldn’t use and felt almost like I was set up to go back to prison.”

back to prison.”

The release practices of state prisons and county jails vary greatly, but one
theme is clear: many release practices are far from conducive to success.
A frequent problem is the practice of requiring people to be released to
(and stay in) the county where they were convicted, which may not be the
county where they have family, a support network, and the best prospects
for finding housing and employment.
The time of day of release from county jail was a consistent problem
identified by survey participants. There are plenty of stories of people
released at midnight or later, after bus service had stopped. This situation
adds an additional challenge of having to explain to police what they are
doing on the street late at night.

8

CONCLUSION
Ninety-five percent of all prisoners will be released from prison and will
once again rejoin the community.ix We have very clear choices about how
to approach public safety and how to deal with the ever-increasing prison
population, a population that does come home. By doing nothing, we will
continue to see more and more tax dollars go to supporting our growing
prison system as too many people fail to make it on the outside. Or, we
can take a different approach.
We can begin to shift more of our resources to crime prevention and
rehabilitation rather than simply incarceration. We can work to end
the cycle of recidivism. This shift has to include a stronger and better
coordinated system of support for the successful transition and reentry of former prisoners. It also demands that we eliminate many of
the unnecessary social and civil barriers that people with felony records
consistently face.
Many people can and do change their lives for the better when given a
chance. This benefits all of us as formerly incarcerated people become
productive neighbors and citizens. Shifting public safety resources toward
rehabilitation and increased support systems for re-entry is an effective use
of taxpayer dollars. Simply put, incarceration is often the most expensive
and least effective approach to maintaining public safety.

Shifting
public safety
resources toward
rehabilitation
and increased
support systems
for re-entry is an
effective use of
taxpayer dollars

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy, a legislatively funded,
non-partisan research group, reviewed over 400 studies of programs
across the country designed to reduce crime. They determined whether
the program benefits outweighed the costs, by measuring the value to
taxpayers and crime victims from a program’s expected effect on crime.
The startling results show that many of the very programs that are being
cut here in Oregon actually save money. Here are some examples:
•
•
•

For every dollar invested in Adult Basic Education in prison,
$5.65 of public benefits is gained.x
For every dollar invested in Vocational Education in prison,
$7.13 of public benefits is gained.xi
For every dollar invested in community-based therapeutic
addiction treatment, $8.87 of public benefits is gained.xii

Whether you take a principle-based approach or simply want the state to
better use taxpayer dollars in maintaining public safety, it is in the public
interest to develop a strong commitment to dismantling the negative
attitudes, policies, and laws that prevent former prisoners from successfully
transforming their lives. We offer the following recommendations as
broad areas where reform and change are needed. These suggestions are
not meant as detailed policy proposals, nor as a comprehensive map
of needed change, but rather as a starting point for consideration by
people truly interested in living in a state that places a high value on

9

It is in the

reducing recidivism and supporting the successful transition of formerly
incarcerated people.

public interest to

Policy Recommendations:
Change Prison Release Practices:
The common practice of releasing state prisoners back to the county
in which they were convicted should be re-examined. Release location
should be based on an assessment of where someone has the strongest
community of support and the best chances of finding stable housing and
employment.

develop a strong
commitment
to dismantling

Remove Employment Barriers:
Establishing stable employment is one of the most important factors in
successful re-entry. The state should examine ways to encourage employers
to provide fair opportunities to people with felony convictions. The
wholesale dismissal of employment applications that show any previous
felony arrest or conviction is unnecessary and unfair. The state should
consider anti-discrimination legislation that prevents employers from
refusing consideration to job applicants solely on the basis of arrest or
conviction history (except where required by statute), while also offering
a set of standards and practices that encourage employers to make
individualized decisions about people with a criminal record.

the negative
attitudes,
policies, and
laws that prevent
former prisoners

Protect Arrest Records:
Arrest records that never lead to a conviction should not be publicly
available or used to make employment, housing, and other critical
decisions about an individual. We must preserve the presumption of
innocence inherent in our justice system. Legislation should be considered
that bars the use of arrest records outside of legitimate law enforcement
purposes. Additionally, legislation that makes it easier to seal or expunge
arrest records that did not lead to a conviction would be a step in the right
direction.xiii

from successfully
transforming
their lives

Increase Support in Acquiring Identification:
Having access to a valid driver’s license or official state identification is
often a requirement for acquiring a job, a checking account, housing, and
services. Therefore, valid identification is a critical resource for successful
re-entry. The Department of Corrections should better assist prisoners in
acquiring the official documentation and identification necessary for their
success when released.
Limit License Revocations:
The practice of suspending or revoking driver’s licenses for non-driving
related infractions has a severe impact on people’s ability to survive upon
release. Legislation that restricts this practice would help people maintain
access to essential identification and mobility when released, factors that

10

support people’s ability to find housing, employment, and stay connected
to their families.xv
Increase Housing Availability:
There is simply not enough housing available for formerly incarcerated
people returning to the community. Much of this is a funding issue,
and we encourage county and state governments to increase funding to
expand transition and re-entry housing. Investing in successful re-entry is
unquestionably cheaper than paying for incarceration.
The Legal Action Center, based in Washington, D.C., has created model
legislation designed to remove the roadblocks for formerly incarcerated people.
We encourage you to examine their resources at www.lac.org/toolkits.

Acknowledgements:

Ninety five
percent of all
prisoners will
be released from
prison, and will
once again rejoin
the community

We would like to thank all of the 384 people who participated in our
survey. Each person gave us their valuable time and shared sensitive
information with us in the hope for change. We would also like to thank
all of our focus group participants who shared their stories. Brent Canode
provided valuable research for this project, and we deeply appreciate his
expertise and commitment. Paul Solomon at Sponsors Inc. provided
critical information and feedback. We would also like to thank the range
of organizations that provided assistance in connecting us to people we
could survey: Better People, Central City Concern, DePaul Treatment
Center, Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, Oregon
Action, Oxford Houses of America, Volunteers of America, Women in
Community Service (WICS). Additionally, several people spent time with
us providing their experience and perspectives on the issues in this report,
including Sue Eastman from SE Works, Terry Leckron from Central City
Woncern, and Frank Omier from Oregon Fair Housing Council.

ABOUT Partnership for Safety and Justice:
Originally founded in 1999 as the Western Prison Project, Partnership
for Safety and Justice advocates for a criminal justice system that is just
and that more effectively creates the types of safe communities we want to
live in. We unite those most affected by crime, violence, and the criminal
justice system to redirect policies and resources away from an over-reliance
on incarceration toward effective strategies that reduce crime and increase
community safety.
We have the following programs:
The Safety and Sentencing Program: This program promotes
approaches to public safety that help foster safe communities, are
fiscally responsible, and reduce our reliance on prisons.

11

The program promotes safe and sensible sentencing reform as well
as alternatives to incarceration and diversion programs.

We can work
to end the cycle

Crime Survivors for Community Safety (CSCS): CSCS is
dedicated to building the voice of survivors of crime and violence
to promote progressive responses to the needs of survivors and
to support criminal justice reform that reduces future violence
without increasing our reliance on prosecution and incarceration.

of recidivism.
This shift has to

Beyond Barriers: Beyond Barriers focuses on eliminating the civil
and social barriers formerly incarcerated people experience. The
program helps create a society that better supports the successful
re-entry and transition of people returning to the community from
prison and jail.

include a stronger
and better
coordinated

The Prison Program: The program advocates for increasing access
to quality programs within prisons that strengthen rehabilitation,
insures that prisoners and their families have access to information
on issues directly affecting the incarcerated, and works to prevent
the implementation of policies or legislation that further erode the
constitutional and human rights of incarcerated people.

system of support
for the successful
transition of

End Notes

former prisoners

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii
xiii.
xi.
xi.

12

US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistic’s report “Prison
and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005.”

Re-entry Policy Council, (2006) Charting the Safe and Successful Return of
Prisoners to the Community.
National Hire Network. “Federal Occupational Restrictions Affecting People
with Criminal Records.” www.hirenetwork.org/fed_occ_restrictions.html
Oregon Revised Statute 342.142 and 342.175
The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Housing and Civil
Enforcement Section, The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) www.
usdoj.gov/crt/housing_coverage.html.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Section 8
Administrative Plan.
Housing Authority of Portland, Public Housing Apartment Criteria for
Residency.
Oregon Dept. of Motor Vehicles, “Primary Documents,” www.oregon.gov/
ODOT/DMV?driverid/idproofprim.shtml.
Oregon Department of Corrections, “Inmate Population Profile for
05/01/2006,” www.oregon.gov/DOC/RESRCH/docs/inmate_profile.pdf
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. May 2001 “The Comparative
Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime.” p7
Ibid
Ibid
The Legal Action Center. www.lac.org/toolkits
Ibid
Ibid

P.O. Box 40085
Portland, OR 97240
(503) 335-8449
www.safetyandjustice.org

 

 

Prison Profiteers - Side
Advertise here
Prisoner Education Guide side