On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Reentry in California – Overcoming Legal Barriers to Community Reintegration 2017 (Free)

Released on: Aug. 15, 2017
Running Time: 06:09:15

In the past three decades, incarceration rates have exploded in the U.S., such that today we incarcerate over two million people, more than any other country in the world. The result is that many more people encounter the criminal justice system at some point in their lives. Indeed, an estimated 1 in 3 adults in California has an arrest or conviction record, and low-income people and people of color are disproportionately affected.

A person with a prior record faces significant barriers to employment, occupational licensing, and other basic necessities like housing, even when the record is old or relatively minor. Now more than ever, immigrants face the threat of deportation based on criminal justice contacts as minor as an arrest that did not result in conviction. This training is designed to give lawyers a foundation in the collateral consequences of contact with the criminal justice system, as well as tools for representing clients in need of reentry legal services.

You will learn:

  • Walking the Talk in Allyship – How to Effectively Support Criminal Justice Impacted Communities
  • Criminal Record Remedy Updates
  • “Reentry” in the Era of Criminalization of Poverty – Bail, Court Fees, and Traffic Courts
  • Overcoming Barriers to Employment and Occupational Licensing for People with Criminal Records
  • Considerations and Best Practices in Planning and Hosting a One-Day Clean Slate Clinic

All attorneys interested in or currently assisting pro bono clients with reentry legal services through representation or in clinical settings, law firm pro bono coordinators, managers and partners, law clinic students and faculty, and public interest and non-profit organization attorneys and staff will benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:09:15]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:07:08]
    Sarah Crowley, Jude Pond
  • Walking the Talk in Allyship – How to Effectively Support Criminal Justice Impacted Communities [01:02:07]
    Joseph Calderon, Taina Vargas-Edmond, Brandon L. Greene, John Jones III
  • Criminal Record Remedy Updates [00:58:40]
    Sarah Crowley, Kara J. Portnow, Meredith Desautels, Ali Saidi
  • “Reentry” in the Era of Criminalization of Poverty – Bail, Court Fees, and Traffic Courts [00:59:00]
    Theresa Zhen, Avni Desai, Ellen McDonnell, Emily Harris
  • Overcoming Barriers to Employment and Occupational Licensing for People with Criminal Records [01:01:30]
    Jude Pond, Danielle Mahones, CT Turney-Lewis
  • Best Practices in Planning and Hosting a One-Day Clean Slate Clinic [02:00:50]
    Eva J. DeLair, Maureen Slack, Vinuta Naik, Jay Jordan

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Seen and Unseen: A Black Attorney’s Experience and a Cousin’s Humanity, Silicon Valley De-Bug, April 4, 2017
    Brandon L. Greene
  • Be Accomplices, Not Allies, February 22, 2017, CODEPINK
    Brandon L. Greene
  • New Protections for Trafficking Victims: Vacate and Seal Past Arrests and Convictions Fact Sheet, Bay Area Legal Aid
    Meredith Desautels
  • Penal Code § 236.14—Fact Sheet: Vacating Arrests & Convictions for Victims of Human Trafficking, Bay Area Legal Aid
    Meredith Desautels
  • Proposition 47: “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act” and Proposition 64: “The Adult Use of Marijuana Act” Outline
    Kara J. Portnow
  • Propositions 47 and 64 (PowerPoint slides)
    Kara J. Portnow
  • Petition for Dismissal Form, CR-180, Judicial Council of California
    Ali Saidi
  • Petition to Withdraw DEJ Plea and Dismiss Charge or Charges Pen. Code §§ 1203.43; 1385 (PC §§ 1203.43(a); 1203.43(b); 1385), Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa
    Ali Saidi
  • Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate Conviction Under California Penal Code § 1473.7; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
    Ali Saidi
  • How to Use New California Law Penal Code §1473.7 to Vacate Legally Invalid Convictions, Practice Advisory, October 2016, Immigrant Legal Resource Center
    Ali Saidi
  • Fact Sheet on Penal Code §1203.43, Effective January 1, 2016, Immigrant Legal Resource Center
    Ali Saidi
  • Senate Bill No. 185, Amended in Senate May 26, 2017
    Avni Desai
  • Court Debt Process Chart
    Avni Desai
  • Issue Brief: Suspended Driver’s Licenses in San Francisco and Campaign to End Driver’s License Suspensions in San Francisco—Proposed Policy Reforms
    Avni Desai, Ellen McDonnell, Emily Harris, Theresa Zhen
  • Not Just a Ferguson Problem: How Traffic Courts Drive Inequality in California
    Avni Desai, Emily Harris, Ellen McDonnell, Theresa Zhen
  • How to Read a DMV Record and Determine the Cause of a Driver’s License Suspension, East Bay Community Law Center
    Theresa Zhen, Emily Harris, Ellen McDonnell, Avni Desai
  • TR-018 Request for Ability to Pay Determination Form, Alameda County Superior Court
    Avni Desai
  • Punishing the Poorest: How the Criminalization of Homelessness Perpetuates Poverty in San Francisco, Coalition on Homelessness
    Avni Desai
  • Senate Bill No. 10, Amended in Senate March 27, 2017
    Emily Harris
  • Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families (September 2015)
    Emily Harris
  • Employment & Criminal Records, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
    Jude Pond
  • Occupational Licenses, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
    Jude Pond
  • Occupational Licenses Appendices A–G, State of California Department of Consumer Affairs
    Jude Pond
  • How to Organize a Record Change Clinic: A Toolkit for Organizations Seeking to Provide Proposition 47 and Other Record Change Services, Californians for Safety and Justice
    Vinuta Naik, Maureen Slack, Hillary M. Blout, Eva J. DeLair

Presentation Material

  • Community Oriented Defense: Stronger Public Defenders, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
    Brandon L. Greene
  • Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families (September 2015)
    Brandon L. Greene
  • Clearing Records for Survivors of Human Trafficking: Cal. Penal Code § 236.14 (PowerPoint slides)
    Meredith Desautels
  • Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants PC 1203.43 and 1473.7 (PowerPoint slides)
    Ali Saidi
  • Propositions 47 and 64 (PowerPoint slides)
    Kara J. Portnow
  • Court Debt Process Chart
    Avni Desai
  • Debt Free San Francisco (PowerPoint slides)
    Avni Desai, Theresa Zhen
  • San Francisco Fines & Fees Task Force: Initial Findings and Recommendations, The financial Justice Project, Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector
    Avni Desai
  • Fines and Fees Task Force: Initial Findings and Recommendations Executive Summary
    Avni Desai
  • Statutory Fines & Fees in California Criminal Cases
    Ellen McDonnell
  • California Commonly Imposed Fines & Fees
    Ellen McDonnell
  • Convictions and Licensing: A (Very High-Level) Overview of Barriers to Occupational Licensing with a Past Conviction (PowerPoint slides)
    CT Turney-Lewis
  • Memo For: Justice Reinvestment Coalition - Alameda County (JRC-AC), May 18, 2016
    Danielle Mahones
  • Reentry in California: Challenges and Advocacy in Employment and Occupational Licensing (PowerPoint slides)
    Danielle Mahones, Jude Pond
  • CLSEPA Clean State Free Live Scan Event Disclosure Statement
    Eva J. DeLair, Jay Jordan, Aaliyah Muhammad, Vinuta Naik, Maureen Slack
  • Process for Community Events Sponsored by Elected Officials
    Eva J. DeLair, Jay Jordan, Aaliyah Muhammad, Vinuta Naik, Maureen Slack
  • Process for Events Sponsored by Elected Officials
    Eva J. DeLair, Jay Jordan, Aaliyah Muhammad, Vinuta Naik, Maureen Slack
Co-Chair(s)
Sarah Crowley ~ Director, Clean Slate Practice, East Bay Community Law Center
Jude Pond ~ Thurgood Marshall Fellow, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
Speaker(s)
Joseph Calderon ~ Prisoner Reentry Network
Eva J. DeLair ~ Staff Attorney, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Avni Desai ~ Public Policy Manager, Community Housing Partnership
Meredith Desautels ~ Youth Justice Attorney & Leading Edge Fellow, Bay Area Legal Aid
Brandon L. Greene ~ Supervising Attorney, Clean Slate Practice, East Bay Community Law Center
Emily Harris ~ State Field Director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
John Jones III ~ Life Coach, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Jay Jordan ~ Second Chances Project Director, Californians for Safety and Justice
Danielle Mahones ~ Program and Capacity Consultant, Bay Area Black Workers Center
Ellen McDonnell ~ Reentry Coordinator and Deputy Public Defender, Contra Costa County Public Defender's Office
Vinuta Naik ~ Staff Attorney/Clinical Supervisor, Clean Slate Practice, East Bay Community Law Center
Kara J. Portnow ~ Deputy Public Defender & Proposition 47 Coordinator, Alameda County Public Defender's Office
Ali Saidi ~ Public Defender, Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office
Maureen Slack ~ Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps Legal Fellow, OneJustice
CT Turney-Lewis ~ Senior Staff Attorney and Reentry Legal Clinic Supervising Attorney, A New Way of Life Reentry Project
Taina Vargas-Edmond ~ Essie Fellow Lead, Essie Justice Group
Theresa Zhen ~ Staff Attorney/Clinical Supervisor, Clean Slate Practice, East Bay Community Law Center
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Reentry in California – Overcoming Legal Barriers to Community Reintegration 2017 Sarah Crowley, East Bay Community Law Center
Jude Pond, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
 
Reentry in California – Overcoming Legal Barriers to Community Reintegration 2016 Sarah Crowley, East Bay Community Law Center
Kristina Harootun, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
 
Share
Email
Incredibly helpful and informative. Practical use for people working with formerly incarcerated clients, even if not specifically doing re-entry work.

- Beth Mazie
  Positive Resource Center

This was a really great training and super applicable to the homeless population that I work with. I am very happy to have taken it and think all the presenters were knowledgeable and informative.

- Anne Rios, Executive Director
  Think Dignity


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.