guardian, empathy, bring social work practice into law enforcement a little bit. ... >> i think just the comment, the pre-emptive use of confrontation , threat, and aggressiveness. take command of the situation. command presence. i think that has -- that starts

out the entrance of an interaction between a citizen and a police officer. this is part of the new train is coming up. you don't have to start out with a pre-emptive use of aggressiveness. >> it the situation warrants it you do have to take control of the situation, once you have everything under control, bring it down, until the people why you stopped them and let them know, give them the respect. we have to take control of it. immediately diaz do it once you have it under control. >> a quick question. the remarkable progress in terms of policing, research and crime analysis. he talked a little bit about

some of those issues as well, community policing, all coming at the same time. but it seems to me one of the challenges is how you actually apply that to the officer on the street when the kind of day-to-day activity tends to be the response, the cost of service, the random patrol car patrol and also for the officers , they're meant to extend to be very much output granted an outcome focused. stops, arrests, cetaceans. >> let me just clarify. a beat officer in chicago, and other cities become sector cars. they control certain geographical areas. in the beginning we talked about the standing. we still have discretionary resources at every level. we did not take that discretionary resource away.

we reduced it and put more of the deployment within the districts taking down because of service. guys and gals in the same geographical area of responsibility, hammond and supervision to ensure that they stay there will help them on a lot. there are less calls for service and the really don't measured by how much nativity. what of it doing to address it. if we are having drinking one of we doing about the minister did notice of violation to try to correct a croupier. robbery suspects, stopping people at the right place of the right time for the right reason. we looked at metrics to make sure that they are on base and not just giving his numbers.

but so on the trips is to make sure that they're focused on the conditions. we have pushed out accountability down to the commanders. here at work waiting for a centralized election. they have a deployment tailored to their needs, we give them the resources and authority to go out and address those conditions which is where we're seeing our success. >> it is true that an important issue has been identifying of econometrics so the police chiefs are encouraged to give awards to people in no good community relations are have then the officer of the month or do surveys so that they can tell which officers have on happy customers, which officers have district where are the. try to diversify the metric

because it is an issue that comes of. officers who are good and other things feel like they're not necessarily getting the attention of someone who makes a lot of rest. that can be fixed and the command level. >> it sounds like at least the main argument being advanced for the reduction in crime rate is the public perception of procedural fairness. can you talk more about the causal link between those two things? >> why would not want to try to claim credit. thank you. i think that the argument is over time there were several ways in which building up trust

can be liable. it's very clear that people who view the police and law as militiamen of less likely to commit crimes. as we build a community where people believe in the legitimacy of law-enforcement, that has a long-term effect on the crime rate because be one of committing crimes. that is true for people in general and for people with the criminal history. schieffer's he talked about a program that is actually being done in chicago with people who are violent gun offenders coming out of prison. we can see reductions and recidivism and people are given a form of treatment that creates a more legitimate sense of wall. that is one way, but i think the other important idea is that david kennedy approach, makes it clear that even in violent, and very small group of people are committing most of the lions. you can gain the trust of the general community you can ask

that community to help be to isolate and confront those people this is a strategy that has been successful and a lot of cities. basically you're trying to use the community as a resource to identify, to help the eyes light. so that is the genesee and -- as a lebron resource in the community. helpful in fighting crime, but i would -- i mean, there are a lot of factors involved in fighting crime. >> this idea of a small number, referred to in the literature, and i'm sure you know, five of recent years. a very small number of offenders the thing i have run into is that this holds for traffic offenders as well. a strong correlation between

areas of collision and tunnels of crime. if you overly one in the event which again suggests a target or approach that could be successful but would also be prone to misuse schists are powerful tools that can give you an enormous benefit, but at this in time can be used in negative ways as well. so they have to be used very judiciously. it would seem to me when you talk about stop, question, and fresh, i would want to see an apartment guideline for how you are managing and giving officers of thinking about this because it is important that these things be done right because it might you run into the shoes. and even when you are aggressive their is a wonderful tomorrow.

they're is a wonderful scene in which you see that they will bust down the door to address to cover somebody for some reason and have a special unit in look highly military and are getting ready to boston. all the neighbors, of course, are around watching. on was of the camera focuses on this guy walking around shaking people sand. there is bill bratton going out as chief explaining to the residence was going on, they are doing this, why it's important. end at one point you see a guy talking to bill and then pointing at another house on the block providing information. if you want to go down the block into that house, the organist. there are ways when you have to be terribly aggressive because of risk and danger, there are ways to communicate that you're doing this on behalf of a community, not to the community,

and it seems to me that that is the big issue that the police have to confront. >> before we get to the next question for the remainder of the event when you're asking a question let us know your name and the organization offers that you represent. i think we have a question over here. >> george burnett, oklahoma attorney general's office. public perception of police shooting seems to have gone volatile over the last few years, more than ever before. the prosecutor's role in making decisions in most cases and complainers decisions to the public. >> will we try to do is immediately after it police shooting, there will be the rumor to really have a call list immediately. we get to the clergy, elected officials, community organizers and let them know exactly what happened as quickly as possible so that they can help disseminate the information on

what transpired which will fight rumor and public perception to ensure that they know a real story. that comes only. when it goes to the prosecutor a thinker would have to hand them over to district attorney donovan, but that is how we get ahead of it. one thing that happens, each police department is different. we have an independent police review authority where it takes it out of our hands in chicago and they take the investigation of really big it is tough for us to get the official word out, but we actually get the underlying message out to community leaders to make sure they can get the message out to their people on what transpired. if we can have as much information as possible. >> it is also having trust in the bank.

people willing to give the the benefit of the doubt of it as you are transparent to from glenn that word was finally used because it seems to me that ought to be one of the key ingredients of new policing. there is very minimal in policing that has to be secret. secrecy was just to keep people away and remain remote and professional. >> and on top of the transparency our crime statistics -- and none of the department, very open. we put it right up on our website. when nature of public information officers get those requests. sometimes we will give information without the request. we immediately put that out every night, every shooting, every murder. they can cut and paste -- some reporters to not have to work as hard. cut and paste.

sometimes we help psst. >> he said that about the media. >> it is true that most discussions with police chiefs-in the media becomes a topic. there may be good reasons for that, but the other side of it is that a lot of police chiefs have become much more proactive and realize that the thing to do is get ahead of it where you build up these relationships with the community, developed channels for information dissemination so that people are used in knowing what is going on they give explanations for ongoing activities, why we're doing these things, the goal. then when they're is a problem there is already a basis for people to understand and be appreciative of what the police

of trying to do. those have been effective in amazing in how ingenious people have much more media seven is tonight about twitter accounts and e-mail networks and to many newsletters and all kinds of ways to get a group of people together with a constant flow of information so that they are understanding what is happening and where they're is a negative event that falls into context of the ongoing relationships. >> i think most of was, put that in a grand jury. even though that is a secretive process, there are 23 people in new york that are deciding whether this shooting was are right for shooting and not i think that is a vote of confidence. one of the things that makes it more difficult, they capture the aftermath. the aftermath always looks so

horrible. that is what the media is grabbing. that little clip of video that looks like the police coming upon these communities and infiltrating and. some one gun shot and everything else. on of the things that the police department, is that. are we good? we are done. thank you. [applause] >> top officials from all branches of the military will be on capitol for a hearing on military compensation. live coverage of the senate armed services committee hearing and 9:30 a.m. eastern on our companion network.

>> house speaker announces that representative trey gowdy of south carolina will head up the new house select committee looking into the 2012 benghazi attack. we are joined by mary troyan, the washington d.c. correspondent for the greenville news in that newspaper. why did the speaker select trey gowdy? >> congressman trey gowdy has been a vocal critic of how the obama administration handled the attacks from 2012 in benghazi. but also he is a former prosecutor, known as one of the most tenacious interrogator is on the hill, and it is that background, i think, that was especially important to the speaker. >> he spent five or six years as a federal prosecutor. how was his track record viewed? >> not just the robo state. people in the of state of south carolina would call in as a very successful prosecutor.

in know, obviously the electives solicitor does not have to do. he won all those places. he was considered a very effective prosecutor at the state level. the right person at the right time. obviously thinking highly. what is the rest of the delegation thinking? >> well, all of of them came in together. they are pretty proud. the people i talk to a pretty proud of their own town.

less thrilled about the fact that this has evolved into a select committee, but upstate greenville and spartanburg it's a conservative area. so far they're pretty proud. >> what of the details to you know about the formation of the committee? it was assumed that trey gowdy would be a chance to talk to act as chairman. >> everybody seems to think it will be this week some time. i believe at that point the speaker in the minority leader would be allowed to make the appointments with the other members to read we don't know if the democrats will participate. in and of resolution itself, we will learn a lot about the committee, what their powers are that is all still to be

determined. >> on twitter tweeting earlier about the news. you can follow our. a washington correspondent for the greenville news can and newspaper. >> thank you. >> coming up, panel discusses access to job opportunities for former prisoners fix the

collateral consequences are perceived as frustrating reintegration for both individuals and communities. many maintain the collateral consequences are a barrier to success and reentry for many offenders. many nations imposed collateral consequences, most such restrictions appear less severe. for the most part courts have held that the definitive potential collateral consequences does not give rise to a clan of ineffective assistance of counsel and that court advisement is not constitutionally required. only the collateral consequence of the petition has been made in exception to this general by the united states supreme court in perugia verses, the kentucky. there is considerable discussion in several circles of legislative and reducing

collateral consequences of providing a portuguese for laborers or exemptions from them which will please set the stage for what i believe will be a very interesting discussion. three distinguished panelists with us today. immediately to my left is the university of cornell's, developing conferences on and one issues and teaches and of ithaca and new york city. graduate of cornell and georgetown university law center she began her career as a field attorney with the nlrb and then moved to a firm where she represented unions and all face of labor law and represented plaintiffs in tunnels of litigation. returning to public service you as the that the director and general counsel of new york city's borough labor services which enforce the plan and opportunity requirements for the city contract and the york city

bar association, american bar association's section of labor and one of law, and the new york state bar association labor and employment law section. the 2006 recipient of the alice cook award for commitment to women's issues in improving the climate for women. thank you for joining us. scott burns was the elected prosecutor in iron county utah for 16 years him. be a a serve as the deputy drugs are at the white house. upon leaving the white house in 2009 he was elected is the security of the national district attorneys association, and after five years recently relinquished the position to return to his native you to the practice law. he received numerous awards and honors for his work as a prosecutor, has been a fierce advocate of victims' rights and

national spokesperson on behalf of america's 40,000 prosecutors. thank you for joining us. prior to his employment as alaskas attorney general michael carey was a partner in the anchor slot from. he began working at the firm in 1979 with a practice devoted to litigation and appeals in state and federal courts in reappeared as the year -- lead counsel before osha, the alaska state commission on human rights and u.s. and commission. born and raised in fairbanks, his private practice focused on areas and industries reflecting bust is growth and history and numerous complex cases including class actions and antitrust. in 2005 he was appointed as the uniform law commissioner when he

received the alaska bar association board of governors professionalism award in recognition of exemplary conduct in his association with the public, cali, and the legal community. 2011 he was elected to the federal american bar foundation. the profession and it bandsman of objectives of the american bar association. he received his undergraduate degree in political science and graduated with their j.d., from the university of santa clara. they have lived in anchorage for 30 years and have five children. it will have the same format as we did in the last panel. each panelist will speak for approximately ten to 15 minutes. we will open it up to the audience for question.

>> good morning, everyone. and can tell you how thrilled and to be here. anti feel like symantec of water in an -- i take the subway by myself that night, but i have been the victim of being mugged twice and having my house broken into twice. and lived in brooklyn. i am always very wary when my sons are out late at night. i come to this subject having been a traditional labor and

employment where. when i moved over to cornell one of the things that became of interest to me was the use of social science research and have the to come together, how lawyers use social science research and house sociologists, industrial organizational psychologist use what they see happening in the legal profession for the research that they do. this is where i come from. when i think about this topic of collateral consequences and recidivism, the first thing to think of as i get. this has so many pieces to the puzzle. we certainly have race discrimination, fear, negligent hiring, drug addiction, my favorite topic, unemployment, crime, public safety. but i look for all the way through the lens. and records are being used as a

selection of vice, this election device, job-related, related to the job to be done and can the employer show a business necessity? those are the hallmarks of i'll i think about this issue. when i think about criminal records, and i have read extensively, done many conferences, talked to many scientists, it appears that we'll begin to think about someone with a criminal record, some home which crimes are not different. is the record in the record only the we think about. people refrain from engaging in criminal activity for as many different reasons as for people getting to. will we do know is that nearly two-thirds of people or released from prison serve and not property offenses -- excuse me, nonviolent offenses including drugs, 37 percent of prop. 25% to its investment

.. he had been convicted in 1985 of the drug conviction for possession of cocaine, are

relatively minor amount of cocaine and he had gotten a court order relieving him of this employment bar but still the chicago public school system refused to hire him. in 85 he was caught with a half-gram of cocaine and sentenced to six months probation. what was interesting about this is that he worked for the chicago public school system at the time, didn't lose his job and in 1988 they sent him to an employee assistance program. it was the turning point in his life. he became a responsible family man, can i respect did member of the community and continue to work for the chicago public school system until 1995 when there was restructuring in the system and he with many others were laid off. the next 13 years he worked at his own mortgage business doing real estate until the real estate turn and then he decided he needed another job. he got a job in hospital working as a building engineer. but wanting to make more money and wanting the benefits the

chicago public school system could provide he reapplied for that job. he had been sober for two decades. he had raised two sons as a single parent and he had no further problems with the law. he was interviewed three times. he was honest on his application about his conviction. they tested him for his skills in being an engineer and just as he was about to be hired he was told he was ineligible for employment because of a provision in the illinois school code prohibiting people convicted of along the last crime including felony drug convictions. so it's the -- in the world that i will tell you i'm very concerned about. we do know that race plays a role here. the eeoc when it issued its guidelines on hiring people with criminal records in 2012 and if you all know the statistics i apologize. about one and 17 white men are expected to serve time in prison

during their lifetime. one in six hispanic men and one in three african-american men. african-americans and hispanics are incarcerated at rates just disproportionate to their numbers and their population. in 2010 black men had an imprisonment rate that was nearly seven times higher than white men and almost three times higher than hispanic men. so we have a large population that has a criminal record. we have a population that needs to be served. in my colleagues in my few, unemployment as one of the most important places where someone can gain a sense of confidence, a sense of responsibility and to continue on in a law-abiding way. in 2003 a study look at how employers looked at hiring someone with a criminal record. she did a very interesting study

involving entry-level positions for the job and i can go into how the study was done later if anyone is interested. but it involves applying for the job and then callbacks. everyone who was in the study was well-trained, presenting themselves exactly the same way however some on their resume said they had a criminal record and some did not. they were white teams, is planning -- hispanic teams and white teams. 34% of the whites who applied for these entry-level jobs without a criminal record recieve called plaques -- callbacks but only 17% with a criminal level. employers are more likely to call back a white applicant with a criminal record and 3.4 times more over a black person with a criminal record in significantly whites with criminal records were called back more often than

african-americans with no criminal record. it's very hard to get a job out there in general and certainly if you have a criminal record. prison we know is often a revolving door. a pew study indicated that between 43 and 45%, almost half returned to prison in the first three years, and often technical violations of parole rather than new crimes. so if people don't go back what can we do to encourage and increase their employment? people a jot of crime. we do know that research shows that there is a decrease of risk for arrests over time depending on the type of crime whether it be property, drugs or violence. after it while you get too old to do many of the things that are involved in crime. and i have those statistics if anyone is interested.

approximately 1.5 million people reside in american prisons and 700,000 are released each year. we talked earlier today about the surge in prison population since 1970, the air of mass incarceration in the war on drugs. over 7 million people are part of an overall correctional population. that includes people on probation and parole. one in four adults has a criminal record. we now spend as a country over $70 billion on incarceration costs, housing, guarding, feeding people who are not really contribute to our economy. a recent study of 40 states found that the average yearly cost of incarcerating one person is about $31,000. i will tell you that it's a lot more than new york state. and suggested that if we can reduce the prison population by 1%, 14,000 people, the result to

the states would be a saving of 400 $304 million and i didn't believe the numbers so i checked the math just to make sure. so i had my colleagues believe it reintegration into communities is facilitated by employment. people need to have intact families as much as possible. children need to be living with their parents and employment plays an important role. one study showed that 89% of people who violate probation or parole are unemployed at the time. another study shows 58% of reduction in recidivism efforts rearrest after someone was employed for 30 days. there's a recent study that was done on a program in new york city ceo that has a comprehensive employment program. they take people right out of prison. they get jobs than they are also given a significant amount of training an individual work with

them to improve their marketability, to approve -- improve their ability to get jobs. there was a study done in which there was a control group. one group got the jobs and all the training and the other group got access to jobs. given access to community health but not the same kind of work that the first group was given. the first group came to the program after being out only three months. it turned out to be that was a very important mission. what they found was after one year was actually no different, no difference which was fascinating, and earnings and employment between the two but what they did find was significant decrease in recidivism. people have been enrolled and having a job and having the extra services given to them, the recidivism rate for them went down between 16 and 20%, a huge chunk i would say.

now let me move to another issue involving employment and that's background checks. backgrounbackground checks quickly. we know that background checks have become a standard part of what employers use when they hire people and what we found was that 55%, the society of human resource found 55% of employers use background checks because they are afraid of negligent hiring. we did a study two summers ago at cornell in new york city looking at negligent hiring losses from 1990 to 2012 to see if negligent hiring, hiring someone who you should not have hired eco-'s the fears you have not done the kind of study you should have done and a higher customer and they heard another employee. what we discovered looking at the likelihood of being sued the

likelihoolikelihood of criminal records were involved in those sources and just let me finish this piece. we found 160 reported cases using verdicts and settlements. of that we have found 78 cases where the plaintiff won or there was a settlement. in the 168 cases we whittled it down to 78 cases where there was a real case of negligent hiring back to something one of the lawyers threw up against the wall like spaghetti to see what would stick. we found 41 cases in all those years they were chewed negligent hiring. the leap in whittled down further to see the was a primary claim. a primary claim was in 28 cases, 19 plaintiff in nine settlement. we then want to know how many of those involve the criminal record and what we discovered was only 11 out of 28 involved a criminal record. the fear of being sued for negligent hiring should not be a great fear especially when you think about new york which there

are so many various employers. there are 588,115 reporting employers for over 8 million employees so when you look at that number if you see it's negligible. the last thing i will say as my time is up is that when we did this study one of the things we were not able to see is whether in fact any employers took into account the requirements of our law that we call 23a which requires analysis if someone has a criminal record and you've done your due diligence in the criminal record the presumption is it will not the admitted into evidence in a negligent hiring lawsuit. so the 23a factors are much like the eeoc guidelines which i'm sure we will talk about later. thank you. [applause] >> thank you esta. scott do you want to give

prosecutors perspective on this issue? >> thank you for inviting me. general suthers it's always a pleasure when you're here. on the west side of the country he is a big deal. a u.s. attorney. [inaudible] [laughter] >> i mad at the teleprompter is gone because we were at dinner last night with two of my heroes william fitzpatrfitzpatr ick from syracuse and dan donovan from staten island and we were talking about running for office didn't he run for attorney general? how did that go? i can trace it back to where lost. it was 1996 when bob dole was running for president. he came to salt lake city and i drove up from mayberry up to mt.

pilot and was standing there but it is so excited i was going to meet bob dole and i found out later he was not doing well so orrin hatch bailed on him. senator bennett i got busy with an issue. three-time governor secretary of health and services. they go he could make it. he got stuck in traffic. in salt lake city got stuck in traffic? he said you are running for attorney general. i'm going to introduce bob dole. there were 500 people there. no kidding. i walked up there and i have orin's notes and what should i say? they said is easy. it's on the teleprompter. just read what orin would have said. that's what that is? i thought it was to keep the president from being shot. i remember as a kid thinking i could never be president because

he did these long notes. how did they remember that? they were reading it. just as i'm going up greg edelman who knew me warren hatches advance guy grabbed me and said don't blow this. don't ad lib.. aye i won't. he said i'm serious. just read it word for word. he came up in the standing next to me and he said bob dole. how's it going? how is your campaign going? not too well. i'm like you either buddy. so the words came up and i said welcome to salt lake international airport. pause. today it's my distinct pleasure, pause. to introduce to you a son of kansas. pause. the next president of the united states, bob dole. [applause]

and he said who are you? it didn't go that well. collateral consequences introduced me on the aba panel a year or year and half a half ago. i googled it and did research and read about it. i try to apply to my life as a prosecutor for 16 years in the world that we live in. i was on the panel and it was called padilla. we have the aclu and amnesty international and i'm sure pew and

putting in a plea agreement. let's each go back. bill you have got new york and kansas you take texas. find out all of the consequences and the collateral in your

state. some of thing came back with 385 collateral consequences. we are going to put into a plea agreement? can you imagine going through that plea agreement? he can't groom a dog in montana. you can't play a harmonic and maine. some of them we all know. the gun is a big deal to certain people but kansas has had a domestic violence program for 2020 years and some guy pistol whips his wife for the 30th time is is convicted of domestic violence. people who are for the 2nd amendment say i want my gun, don't they? i think what we have tried to do the national district attorneys association office i've had the great honor of serving under henry garza of texas is talk about consequences and what's reasonable and what is in our life but also remind everyone that in the united states some

40,000 prosecutors, 2500 elected prosecutor 97% of criminal cases in this country. when joe nero holder stands up and talks about the programs and addressing issues is good nba is here because in the city of philadelphia in six months all of federal judges and prosecutors in the entire year. over 10 million felony cases by state and local prosecutors. what we have been trying to talk about in addition to the collateral consequences and yes we need to be concerned about defendants in oh my god the execution in a moment. did you hear about that? wears kay, who is taking over for me and is going to be great tree at i would say my first question is before we get started what was the victim's

name collects what did clinton duckett due? he leaned up and said oh man was going on. what he do this on june 3, 1999 that ducks 19-year-old denise nyman and a little town of perry oklahoma. her parentage is butter in a truck. to us all excited. had a tasmanian devil sticker in it. she got personalized license plates and she was kind of a frumpy girl and a tilt with her confidence in school. she has some friends over to show them the truck. this guy abducted her and her friends and drove them out into rural area outside of perry oklahoma. had a friends dig a grave, had her stand in the grave and took a shotgun and shot her. she didn't die. she fell down and the grave. he went back to his truck while she is pleading please god, no. fix the shotgun went back and

shot her a

doing a background check where you have similar criminal records and a white guy gets called back and the african-american doesn't and the hispanic, that's not right. these are things that we should change. i have a buddy in atlanta who is probably one of the biggest philanthropists in the state of georgia. in 1982 he had a small amount of cocaine.

nine years ago as part of her job as a prosecutor she argued axe instead of y and again in case of the nra comes out. she can't be a federal judge but

now we will have u.s. attorney attorneys wholesale by the thousands supplant in their judgment for our criminal justice system under this thing called clemency. i think you should get out in the new rules aren't over. they have to be over 10 years. whatever their conditions are in my judgment. they are now saying the executive branch knows better and we are now coming in. we are going to let them out and give them clemency. i don't know. i said who else has done that? i always thought it was tiffany's when we fix a horrible case and now it's going to be like walmart. now we will bring in thousands of them in the president's going to exercise the right of clemency. nationwide it seems like our discussion has become defendants rights collateracollatera l consequences, but let's figure out a way to help them before they get in help them while

they're they are there and when they get out we don't talk about victims, people that have been thrown in the trash,, the people that have been raped and burglarized or family members. stefanini nyman of perry oklahoma. it doesn't come up and we need to start talking about the collateral consequences of the victim in america. thank you. [applause] >> thank you scott for living up to all my expectations. [laughter] general geraghty. >> thank you. i am not a career prosecutor though in my state i do have responsibility for the district and criminal attorneys so it's been a bit of a learning experience. we have something called the

criminal justice working group which is similar to what general van hollen was describing an interagency group. we have no funding but it's cochaired by myself in the justice on the alaska supreme court. the public defenders are part of it. , community agencies are involved in the process so there's a group of maybe 30 of us and we meet several times a year to talk about these issues. i was struck and we talk about statistics but the one that comes to my mind is the u.s. has 5% of the world's population yet we house 25% of the world's prisoners. and at least in alaska 60% of our incarcerated individuals are nonviolent offenders. they are not the people scott

was referring to the vicious murders and so on. there is a cost associated with incarceration. we just opened a new prison last year. before that we house a number of prisoners in colorado through private contracts so we bought all those people that column. he seems to me there's a transition occurring and general holder referred to it i think in the sense that people are fiscal conservatives and fiscal hawks are realizing there is a cost to being tough on crime. it's a cost not only to state government debt to society as a whole. just in our state which has a small population we try to tackle this. we had heard about collateral consequences and there's a

project going on the national inventory of collateral consequences and conviction project. i think it's funded by the va and administered by the national institute and of justice as i recall that we contacted them and we have legislators who are interested. i was interested and they moved us to the top of the list for some reason. they did take a look at our state and lempl hold we have well over 500 collateral consequences in our statutes and the regulations just in alaska. and that doesn't count -- there are a number of federal as well that would have applied obviously to state prison. it's the local communities that have their own little nuances in consequences whether it be getting a taxicab license.

it's stunning to me the scope of it. many of them are licensing, anything license and, nutritionists, hearing aid dealers whatever the case may be. there is a member of collateral consequences i don't think that her material in the discussion we are having here today. people coming out of the system prison won't be affected by them. do we have by the same token the people to work in the liquor industry and a cabaret license to sell liquor or be a bartender. that would be an area that would obviously be affected. commercial driver's licenses and area the people could end up trying to seek a new job in.

these convictions would affect people's ability to get back to those jobs. we have been taking a look at it and i think this is probably typical of what other states have as well. but we look and we have a variance process for example. i think this is true for many states as well. the division of health and social services the main licensing body in our state. they have a program and we learned average maybe 10 to 20 variance requests are received every month from people who are employers who want to hire someone who has a record who would otherwise be barred under the applicable regulation.

they take about a month to process on average and many times thought all the required paperwork has been turned and initially so they have to send back and get in additional information. it takes about a month to process and 75% of them of the applications that are received or granted. there are some progress there. we also learned for instance the commercial driver's licenses and this is counterintuitive today that we have maybe 35,000 individuals with commercial driver's licenses in alaska. they revoke less than 1% of licenses on an annual basis because of the criminal convictions. again something i thought might need a higher number is actually in practice not that high.

so you are kind of left wondering what is the impact. i think intuitively we know it's important to know for people when they get out to have some options. in our state and i can't speak for the other states but about 60% of our population is rearrested within three years after they get out. that is one of the main goals of our working is just trying to reduce the recidivism level. we do think that creating opportunities is reasonable. not for the vicious and violent felonies. those people are going to have to carry around those convictions wherever. let's there are many large subset of nonviolent offenders, drug offenses and so on.

those can be violent and they can be bad people. we are looking at trying to create opportunities and the other interesting thing is federal drug felonies for example you can't get a lifetime ban for food stamps. states can opt out of that or they can minimize and moderate the ability of the person to become eligible again. we are one of 11 states that did not change those. we still enforce the federal ban. these are federal monies folks and i think the feds also pay for it ministering the program in the states to reverse the state. if you think about it you have a family and it's an offense that bars you from getting federal benefits.

it can be hard. he can be harsh. another statistic i read between 1991 in and 1998 the number of kids who have had a parent incarcerated in a state or federal facility has increased over 100%. families need a way out and people getting out of the system need a way to support their families. our state is very conservative and we have not altered or changed that, the federal law. we have not opted out and allowed people to regain those benefits under certain conditions. we are taking a look at the next step in what we are doing anyways to try to come up with what we are calling a certificate of completion. there are over 500 statutes and regulations and it's really a patchwork.

there is hardly any rhyme or reason to it when you go through it. it just happened when the laws were changed or enacted whenever that was an those were the consequences. a certificate of completion is intended -- and it's not legislation we are still trying to work on it but if you have completed her sentence any of completed a rehabilitation and paid restitution and maybe a certain period of time passes by you get the certificate issued by a court. then you have something that you can take to an employer and that employer hopefully would hopefully consider you as eligible and give you a job if you are entitled and you have the background for it. so it's similar to what the other major effort out there done by the uniform law

commission called the national consequences and conviction act. it's a model act and approaches this issue on a number of levels. one is coming up with them but tory of all these consequences. part of the act tries to establish some causal connection between the restriction, the collateral restriction whatever it may be in the offense. for example our state commercial fishing licenses if you are convicted of theft or crime involving dishonesty you could have your license, your commercial fishing license revoked. i don't know about the connection there between the crimes of dishonesty and theft with the commercial fishing license but this uniform act we

have proposed would try to impose a reasonable restriction and a causal connection between the collateral consequence and a the crime that the defendant was guilty of grave i think that's a step in the right direction. i don't believe we have more recent information. one of the features we do like in this uniform act as it has what is called a certificate -- another name for it but it's similar to what i'm talking about. if you finish the program and you have served your time and served her sentence you have your certificate that you can use to show u.s. proof that you have been through the system and you are worthy and you have paid your debt to society. you should be considered along with everyone else because again the numbers are just getting so overwhelming.

so we are working in that direction. the other major thing that has happened in our state is the expungement of records. we have something called court and i'm sure other states have similar, arrest convictions and acquittals and basically a word. this last session a conservative senator got through a bill to require expungement of arrest records.

i can say for myself is probably going to go with a guy with no arrest record. that's another front where progress is being made that with an not without controversy. other states have tried to pass them and they were vito. there is one our state right now which the jury is still out on. in any event an important

subject and i appreciate the comments from the panelists. it's something we have to wrestle with that society. >> thank you. general geraghty race an issue that i think is at the heart of this. philosophically what are we trying to accomplish with collateral consequences? i kind of pose a two or three-part question. they are not intended to be punitive. they are not intended to be a punishment for the crime. they are supposed to accomplish some additional societal goal. public safety, deterrence so i guess for all of you i would pose the question are there certain collateral consequences that you feel are more rationally related to public safety than others? some clearly are trying to garner public safety and two is

there a deterrent effect? we know that collateral consequences will increase dramatically in the 80s and 90s. guess what? crime decreased significantly in the 80s, and not the 80s but the beginning of the 90s. and so are people not engaging in some criminal behavior because gosh i don't want to put my license at risk for something like that. all three of you philosophically what are we trying to accomplish? are we accomplishing it and which collateral consequences make sense to you? esta do you want to start? >> you are the smartest. >> not at all. absolutely not. i think that the purpose of collateral consequences as for public safety. certainly if you know you are going to do something that violates the law and you are going to go to jail that seems to me a much bigger deterrence

then thinking i won't be able to be an animal reader someplace or i won't be able to cut hair or any of the other places with a licensure requirement and if you have a criminal record you can perform that function. i think it's supposed to be for public safety so that's the first step. do i think it indeed meets that goal? i think what we really need to have in terms of all the things we have been talking about is an individualized assessment that you certainly have people -- i don't want them out on the streets either people who engage in criminal, violent criminal activity. we certainly would never want a pedophile working a public public school or private school for anyplace where the you are going to find children but for most of these we are talking about is there a relationship between the job they performed in a criminal act that the person was found guilty of and has served his or her time. i don't think it's a deterrent at all. i think the public safety can only be met were in fact there

is this relationship between the job and a license or whether it's driving a car. >> a problem for example if you are convicted of a sexual offense you cannot he a schoolteacher. >> absolutely not, of course. we want to protect her children. >> okay, scott. >> i think in reading some of these across the country honestly some of them are more humorous. i saw no connection between the collateral sanction of somebody that was convicted of their fifth drunk driving that cannot groom a dog. if it's drunken grooming i don't know but -- [laughter] as you say in the beginning the obvious common sense real-life purpose is to keep sex offenders from being boy scout leaders and to keep people that are violent

out of situations socially and her employment where they ought not be. i think that's legitimate and i think all americans would support that. >> i agree with the rest of the panel. i am not an expert and there are experts here and i may be totally -- but in terms of reduction of crime as it's been referred to a large part are the demographics. you look at the 18 to 30-year-old age group and i think you can pretty much track criminal statistics with the size of the population going up or down and the baby boom that we have after the war. as the group reaches the prime age. i agree with scott and esta many of them make perfect sense. none of us would advocate of

that it was a juggernaut that has in my state alone as well over 500. i don't think that's reasonable. >> the interesting thing about it is it's the legislature that created the collateral consequenconsequen ces. one of my frustrations is is a legislature that wants to pass a bill suggesting the courts advise people of all these collateral consequences. why don't they just eliminated some of the collateral consequences? it seems to be that would be a more -- which address it. esta you have to understand have to understand this panoply of some state guys and some local guys. we don't entirely trust the federal government. >> i gathered that. >> i've got to tell you some of us have an adverse reaction when the eeoc puts out guidance suggesting that is inappropriate for employers to ask about criminal convictions on initial

job applications. for those of us who are interested in his job it is to preserve public safety we have a general sense that there is some relationship here. employers ought to have some idea of criminal backgrounds if they are going to hire someone. what is the eeoc trying to accomplish here? >> first let me be clear that the eeoc didn't say you couldn't acquire about someone's criminal background conviction. it's not what the eeoc guidelines talk about. first of all the eeoc has protected classes raise sex national origin and religion it age and disability. criminal record is not a protected class. what the eeoc is looking at a safe disparate impact when you have a neutral rule but has

disparate impact on the group. it could be a world rule that you didn't intent to discriminate but in deeds and set discriminating so the one that's easiest to think about, the ones that are easiest to talk about our height and the police department. it had a disparate impact on women, latinos and asians getting positions in the police department because they couldn't meet the height requirement.

the number of states that have tried. not one of them but it's something that wouldn't surprise me if it comes up to ban employers to say you have your big convicted requirement. so you couldn't do it at that stage. as i mentioned earlier is when many of these people are screened out. simply if you got a group of applicants and someone is checking out box, loom.

if you want to ban the box legislation then this guy who may have been arrested and convicted is on your shortlist. at that time this person had other qualities that made them attractive for this job. at that point you can inquire but then it's in the context of a face-to-face interview. it's not that it can never come up. it's when they come up and the legislation is to prohibit them from writing it in the application. this is something we have looked at in our state as well. i think target is an example. they did it on a voluntary basis i believe out of minnesota so those groups in the retail industry for example. they may not be the only one but that's the recent past that i recall.

>> agreement was signed with the attorney general of new york state's to take that off. the eeoc guidelines don't go to ban the box. it's by state and local legislation. >> does the attorney general in new york state have the box? >> i don't know. >> i would be shocked if he didn't. >> i don't know. i can answer the question but the concept comes out of the americans with disabilities act. you're not allow to answer someone in the hiring situation to you are about to make a conditional offer of employment. whether he needed as an accommodation for disability that i have. the concept is you will get to know me. you will like me and you will think i'm qualified and able to that individualized assessment because i have a criminal record. that's the concept behind banning the box. >> scott, where are we going with this? as you know you see more and

more movements to have greater advisement about collateral consequences. do you think there is a notion that it could be extended and judges and prosecutors will have to be a lot more focused and to actually come up with lists? where are we going on this whole thing? >> i think that's the real concern in the real world. i spent the last few days as haven't done in a long time sitting in the courtroom and watching how real men in women's try real court cases in america. i was struck to the fact that forget that 85% prosecutor prosecutors offices in this country have for prosecutors or less. they're really small towns and small counties. seth and catherine in miami and the dow and chicago and bonnie in san diego and across the country new york are the rare

exceptions. the vast majority of american i know a lot of people shake their head. if you get out there you are going to find out they know who the neighbors are. they know the smith kids. they are always in trouble and by god bobby got arrested again. the collateral consequences in small communities of people know who committed the crime and who didn't and have great faith in the criminal justice system and how they look at each individual case. their fear is honest to god some really smart person watching 10 passes this collateral consequence thing and we have to have plea agreements that are 2 inches that. we have public defenders that don't make a lot of money and have to go into jail and sit there for an hour and a half. you can do this and you can do that. are you talking me out of the? i think we have to be very careful.

every time i see the attorney general and the last time we spoke henry was kind enough to set that up. this whole thing about the criminal justice system is broken. too long, too many low-level offenders have been locked up and they need to change that. collateral consequences is one and re-entry. really? i would like to come to washington d.c. once and just celebrate the fact that homicides are down 50%. rape, ruppel he had -- robbery and burglary down 50%. we turned it around and nobody mentioned the national academy of sciences port. sometime today google bja bureau of juvenile recidivism. i don't know if any of you saw. it's really high. it's like 70%.

a new offense within three years of being released. but somebody decided a long time ago smart people in this room hey if they work continues they have the audacity to commit crime after crime we are going to lock them up and we are going to lock them up for a long time. it's five times more than uganda. fine, we'll take it. crime is down dramatically and with this issue and other issues i hope good men and women will reflect and think about it and how we have to prosecutors here from new york to try cases every day. how does that affect your life when they say the people are ready for the next case? >> general geraghty i spent three of the most interesting years of my life running a colorado prison system. what identified and not was i think one of the weakest areas of the criminal justice system is re-entry and what we do

trying to bring inmates back into society. is your task force have particular look at re-entry and what you are trying to do? >> we do and i don't think we reinvent the wheel. we try to go where others have gone honestly but we have something called partners in progress which is anchorage-based entity. they are our task forces will, the executive director that. they're currently working with a grant of a couple million dollars and the three-year project. they create the housing to come out of the system and they have their own rules and stuff like that. we also have a re-entry task force in our major banks in the borough. at that level they are doing something already for rent which is a workshop that the state

people are not trained to do. they take people and teach them basics about the landlord tenant situation and what the situation is. it's very basic stuff for people who have lived on the streets or couches before that. we are trying to do that. a lot of people are rearrested and it's something i struggle with, for violating. that's a huge part in terms of our population. the conditions are set when they are sentenced and they do the time. they violate, get drunk, get high or whatever the case may be. another program showing a lot of progress progress is pay switches project accountability certain enforcement and again i

give credit to for why he. it's something called hope a similar system and people get out typically and violate several times. the prosecutor may allow a certain level of violations to build up before they take the time to revoke politicians and stuff like that. pace is built upon the idea that you violate the first time and primarily you will fail a drug test, failed to show up for your drug test or failed to show up for your regular meeting with the officer. whom, 72 hours and you are going to go to jail for two years for example for a first offense. the idea is to show immediate consequences and that is shown progress. it's just been going on in the last couple of years. they have also implemented one in fairbanks which is for more domestic violence offenders.

the one in anchorage, the pace program is for folks in the drug offenses. palmer started one as well which is 40 miles outside of anchorage. so things like that i think are important. they have to be immediate consequences, not severe for something to get their attention to let them know. again that hopefully will reduce the size of that population because that is constant. a revolving door. not just committing crime necessarily but they violate. we are following trying to -- but is showing some promise. >> we have about 20 minutes. let's see if we have any questions from the audience. the fact that whether you are convicted felon or not you are free to ask questions. our first volunteer in the back

there. >> i am mark lovett with wright on crime. have a question about what folks think about the idea of allowing prosecutors to wave and i guess a judge could but realistically most cases are plea deals. the prosecutor would be able to waive certain collateral consequences and i think there might be a fair amount of support. this is what licensee agencies and other bureaucracies think about that as well. >> it's a great question. >> it is a great question. i don't know prosecutors have the authority necessarily as if to say they couldn't if they did have that authority. that would be a question i would have in my mind as to whether they could wave at the time.

how much time judges spend but it's an interesting concept. to find out out if there's something they could do at that level but i think the statute is given that the authority to a different agency and state government. the due process and most of them are approved. i was pleasantly surprised to learn that. it could he done at the prosecutor and maybe that would be better. i don't know the legality of it. >> either of you? >> i think prosecutors could correct me but in some sense every single day when you are engaged in plea negotiations there are some waving of collateral consequences. a i'm not going to have you plead to c because under a you don't get a gun or are you going

to be registered sex offender for life? if you plead to this other offense i'm going to relieve you of that and we can roll the dice he can go to trial. i think it would be difficult to take statutory consequences and say you know i'm the prosecutor and i have the authority to waive your drunken dog grooming. i don't see that happening. >> there happening. speeders of the controversy and denver several years ago when it was found that the denver district attorney was putting a lot of fences down to a non portable offense for the primary purpose of making the person not subject to automatic deportation. esta do you have any notions about where these waivers are to take place in the system? >> so semi-proponent of individual assessment and looking at the person as they are now and not the record they

created. for example it would seem to me within state government, within state government a procedure could be set up where a person what applies to have that particular licensing prohibition waived for that based on who they are and then the government agency would be the one that would waive it with an appeal. ..

>> one has to be sympathetic to the other people living in the billing who don't want a former gang member or a drug dealer moving into the complex. by the same toke ', there's nothing more criminal -- than having somebody be released from prison having no place el to live. i'm wondering what efforts have been made to reconcile that tension, and i don't think individualized focus would really work because you have an immediate need. this person is being released from prison and he need as home, a place to live, and living with family is probably the best option for the most part. on the other hand he needs that immediately, and we all know what bureaucracies are, and individual assess. s don't -- they really take

time. i wonder what work has been done in this area and whether you have any thoughts about that. >> if anybody has any thoughts, my guess is it's esta. >> i worry about the same issue how raise. i think about it in terms of a family living in public housing and the parent gets out and can't good home. what does that mean in terms of breaking up the family? but i have not seep any studies so i'm not aware. i know it's a big problem. >> i have not seen studies, either. the program in anchorage, partners and progress, they do 40 to 50 prisoners a day -- i guess it fluctuates -- they provide them housing, and i dent in the detail of families about i think privatize a prisoner who did have a family when he gets out and they need a place to stay and put them together-but i

just know the one the alaska -- you want be to flexible with the rules. no alcohol allowed, for example, but is that going to push people out? they're experimenting with allow something alcohol on the premises, and i den know all the details about it's a very tricky area but a very important one because, as you say, that's nothing -- nothing is more likely to lead to recidivism that not having anyplace to go. >> speak briefly to the law-abiding public housing tenants. i think you also hear a voice that we should -- while it is an into it. ment, being subsidiesed by the

rest of us, they don't want people that just got out of prison coming back and wreaking havoc. might not be the nicest place in the world but a it's their home doom we have to be subjected to mrs. smith's son, adopt at the, who just got out for robbery for the third time and is coming back and i know he will be doing a, b, and c? so there's a religiousal relationship between the consequence ask the good of the order for other people. >> a tough question. >> it is. >> yes? >> the collateral consequences is about saying no, and part of the public policy debate short of saying no is an employer's right to know, and there are public policy proposals to cut off after a certain period of time an employer's able to ask a question about a criminal history, and, for example, the

human resources managers study that esta discussed at the beginning of the comments show that many employers do conduct criminal history checks and most employers conduct criminal history checks responsibly and thoughtfully and should continue to do. so even a conference i takenned that esta put on, some of the criminologist says it can be ten, 12 years after supervision g

>> do you have any thoughts on the subject of expunge. jurick what types of problems're seeing? what crimes are expungible and what problems are people seeing? >> it was a generic bell that allowed to ex-pumpingment so did not have many guidelines, and i think between local defense attorneys and local judges they've been kind of creating a new body of law. so, it's really particularly difficult because we don't have the very specifics that would be necessary for an expungement, but it's any d felony so anything pled down to a d. >> okay. well, i think it's -- is a said we were having our own controversy, and i have personally have in misgivings

about getting rid of acquittals. i'm not sure what the time period is. i think it will be effective immediately. so it's going forward. then there's language that says the court system is supposed to use its best efforts to go back and expunge, take out stale arrest records and so on. but it's -- i have misgivings about it. it's tough sledding in a number of states. i think north carolina agreed on a 15-year -- the crime had to be 15 years before. they had to do that to be buy-in from all the stakeholers, that was something they could live with. so, i -- it's something i think is reasonable to talk about. the arrest records and certainly after some period of time -- i don't know it's fair for somebody who rejoined society to carry around that stigma anymore. so, i in principle i think it's a noble endeavor but i think

when you get into to the details, it's -- there's a lot of issues raised. >> scott, do you have some feelings? >> a lot of what real prosecutors do, as you know, general, it's difficult -- i always thought expungement was a fun thing, the one chance where i got say, this person -- it's been nine years, he's a family map, he's got a job, put all that behind him. can stand before the court with pride and saying the state concurs -- i thought it was other good thing, and those states that have them, we rely on women and men that try cases all the time and i trust their judgment every day in indiana or wherever you're from to say, yes. scott burns is entitled to this or, no, i don't want him out there without revealing the has a particular record. so, i think they're in when used appropriately.

>> absolutely. one last question -- >> we agree. >> nice. >> we have a point of agreement up here. akind of an historic situation. >> what are you doing for dinner? [laughter] >> yes, sir. >> i came from vancouver, british columbia, and i thought the discussion is very interesting and i e-mailed a friend during it because i know the supreme court of canada has ruled that actually these collateral consequences are something that have to be considered by the prosecutor and the sentencing judge. in a recent decision the supreme court of canada said if there's a sentence imposed that might be within the appropriate range but if beyond that -- if in the higher part of the range would lead to someone being deported or something lick that, or or lose their right of appeal on deportation order, that should be considered. not that the sentence shouldn't be provided but that has to be considered, and part of the consequences and whether that's an appropriate consequence. and just more recent decision

from our court of appeals saying even when it wasn't before the sentencing judge, the prosecutor or the defense attorney at the time, came later after the fact, as fresh evidence to the court of appeals that the person got a call from housing, from social services saying, because of your conviction for fraud you're no longer eligible for any social assistance benefits as a result of this. she didn't know -- attorney didn't know, crown didn't know, and at the time of sentencing and the court of appeals said this is fresh evidence we should consider and as a result we're going to grant her a conditional discharge as opposed to an annual conviction on her record. so, that sort of a comparative understanding of what could be done. it's not that -- it's not considered. it can be as a collateral consequence considered and then decided whether it's appropriate or not. just the discussion about check the box, i found it interesting to say that whether you shouldn't or have to mark

whether you've been arrested or convicted. our law society asks that of every prospective lawyer. have you been arrested, convicted, are you an alcoholic? do you have mental health issues? it's not that the questions don't bar anybody, just leads to more press and process. some someone says they suffered some mental health issues. they have to go through a -- go to a medical doctor, have a counseling, milwaukee sure your okay. so those are consequences that maybe are possible. >> is your sense that canada has fewer collateral consequences than the united states? >> for -- definitely. 500 seems amazing. we do have some of the similar ones like immigration consequences, welfare benefits consequences, but not so pervasive. for instance, if you have one person in the family but the whole family would be barred from social housing or something like that. i haven't heard that.

but the 500 or so is beyond. >> thank you. what is your sense about this after the fact look-see, gee, didn't realize i wouldn't get into housing and you come back and you could reconsider -- >> well, very interesting question. where does padilla lead us? i think -- i'd be surprised if those kind of questions and that kind of information is not shared with your client before they plead, and or shared by the judge if that's the consequences of a conviction. fraud convictions are one of those things in the law that say, yeah, for a lot of consequences, surprised me when i looked at it. just to digress, interesting on the deportation issue, just in our own -- we have presumptive

sentences in alaska for certain offenses, and recently our counter of appeals decided that a gentleman lived in -- in the military, but was not a citizen. served in the military, but committed a crime and the presumptive sentence would have subjected him to deportation. and so our trial court, our court of appeals, upheld it, that the trial court could sentence him to 364 days, which was less than the trigger, that mouth submit him to deportation. so a citizen of alaska would have gotten that sentence that -- the presumptive sense that the legislator called out but this individual-because of his status, got a lesser sentence in order to -- again, it was upheld by the court of appeals and our supreme court did not accept the review of itself. so, there's an interesting

angle. many of us -- and number of legislatures puzzling over that. just didn't seem right under the circumstances. but i think when 'er hypothetical -- your hypothetical, somebody was -- pled to a crime and on something like that, that might have them rejected from housing or something, that's a tough case. i don't know. >> i love canada and you can rest assured you'll be nicer on all of this than we will. i didn't know you deported anybody. i thought i could go there if i got in real trouble. gees. when did that start? an that note, join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] >> coming up on c-span 2, a

roundtable interview with student representatives from each of the top five winning documentaries in c-span's student competition. then the specials a visser to the president discusses the administration's climate change agenda, and later, remarks by attorney general eric holder on racial disparities in criminal sentencing. >> on the next "washington journal" staff director dwight and andrew discuss the housing freeway bill, making its way through the senate. and then politico recorder adam snyder looks at the highway trust fund which provides most federal support for state transportation projects. plus, phone calls-facebook comments and tweets. >> the from the state -- discuss

enter intervention in ukraine. you can see it live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> half the reason i did this book is because mar that, when she arrived -- she was in love with what she referred to as the nazi revolution. she was enthralled by the nazis, which struck me as a completely surprising thing given what we all know. how could you actually be enthralled with the nazi revolution but there she was. >> eric larson, from 25 areas of book notes and q & a conversations. c-span, sundays at 8:00. >> every year since 2006, c-span

has been inviting students to participate in our student camp competition and join in the debate over public policy issues by producing a video on a topic of their choice. this year's theme, what's the most important issue congress should consider in 2014. we received more than 2300 entries, from 46 states, the district of columbia, and even overseas in taiwan and the united arab emirates. more than 4800 students participated either individually or in teams. prizes totaled $100,000, and here's the breakdown, grand prize entry, three first-prize high school entries and one first-prize middle school entry. want to introduce you to emma larsen, who represents the grand-prize winning team. one of three. michaela and sarah also part of the team that produced the video, earth first, fracking second. so, emmark let's begin with -- how did you and your team get

assigned this topic? >> well, fracking kept coming up. i first heard about it driving to school on npr and thought, oh, this would be a good project. and then while doing a current event for our government class, there were articles in "the los angeles times," "the new york times," and we read those, and the moment where we all decided this was going to be our topic is when there was an article on fracking in our local newspaper and it said how fracking was happening two miles from our house. so there's this national problem and up no it's a local problem and from then on we aural very passionate about the subject and its seemed obvious that's what our top yuck should be. >> you're from long beach, california. >> yes you you go to long beach polytechnic high school. so this is a school assignment. >> i'm taking a u.s. government class and our teacher assigned the project as a mandatory thing, and to be hon, it's the best school project i have ever

done. i've learned -- never learned so much from a project than i have from this one request. >> what what did you learn? >> the technical side offed didding. never touched an editing program before so a whole new door of opportunities and things i can do now that i know how to work programs like that. and then i learned about fracking and something impacting our country in a good and bad way, and problem-solving skills, how can we help? then we learn about the political process. we went to hearings and heard people express their views and we learned how ideas are made into bills which are made into laws which go into action. so, definitely a huge amount of knowledge gained from this. >> you went to local hearings in your area? to learn more about it? >> yes there was a hearing at a'll university where people from all over the state were there, expressing their opinions on a bill that was going to be signed in, and so we listened to

a lot of people's stories and opinions. >> you learn it one just a local issue, either. happening across the country. what did you come across? >> yeah. one of the people we are interviewed from pennsylvania, and he was having the same problems that farmers in california were. and so we learn how this -- it needs to be addressed nationally because each state is having a problem with it. >> along the way, was there anything that sort of surprised you or that you didn't know about? >> yeah. i was shocked at the lack of regulation that there is for it. it seemed to me that it should be a process that is very regulated and has -- but it's really just being freely done. that was shocking to all three of us. >> what did you learn about the economic impact of fracturing? for this country. >> well, i mean, we're not in the best economic times, and learning this could create two

million jobs

>> do you find yourself paying attention a little more what is being debated on all issues? >> definitely. i've always been interested to the news, and npr is constantly playing the background in my house. i'm listening to and it getting interested in different political things. >> do you think you would like to pursue that as a career later on, something in politics or public policy? >> yeah. i would. if you have a position like that, you're making a difference, and you're bettering our country and that's really

important to me. >> so the grand prize winning team gets $5,000. what are you going to do with the money? >> even before we started working on the project we had been planning to take a trip after our high school gradation and now we have the money, that's going towards the vacation. >> where is the trip? >> greece. >> you already decided. >> yes. >> why greece and. >> someplace we had never been and looks beautiful from pictures. >> well, emma larson, let's show our viewers the documentary, called "earth first, fracking second." >> you congress ordered the environmental protection agency to look into dangers to drinking water sources due high drawlic fracking. >> compete fled 2014. the epa announced studies until 2016. can we really wait that long, congress?

>> welcome to our study, long beach, california. population, 465,000 people. with our famous 11-mile coastline and booming tourism, you wouldn't believe high drawlic fracking takes place right underneath ore streets. >> have you ever heard of fracking? >> high drawlic fracturing? >> no. >> fracturing. >> what? >> my name is chris guardianer and i'm the director of long beach gas and oil inch the past year we did 130 new oil wells in long beach. these are offshore from the oil operations that -- oil islands, and of those we did 8% of -- about ten of the wells were involving fracking. >> to truly understand what fracking is we took a trip to a company. >> it's a mile a while, drill down and into that. this was the layer. we come down, down, down, mile deep, and it goes sideways.

the next thing is we want to open the fracture. >> the company shoots down a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals, and explosions, and then the high pressure of the fluids break apart the rocks and allow the gas or oil to escape and flow, flow up to the surface. >> high drawlic fracking is kick starting our energy industry. >> the high draw look -- done. >> the u.s. just passed russia as number two we're going to pass saudi arabia and be number one. >> there's so much interest in production, so many more jobs being created, and senator hide camp's state they've one out of workers -- run out of workers oomph not sure we can build their roads fast enough to get this production underway. it is revitalizing the manufacturing base of america.

>> we invest in oil and gas partnerships on behalf of our clients. what are the benefits of fracking? well, it's going to save america's youth from the burden of debt built up by their parents and grandparents, fracking and the energy industries are going to create an additional 3.5 million jobs by 2020. >> but it is not that simple. there are many rae concerns that the impact of hydraulic fracturing on our environment and they need to be addressed. >> one day i lit a match and the water caught on fire. i thought about a lawsuit, but then stumbled upon the fact that fracking is exempted from the clean water act. no fracking way. >> what has come to be known the hali burton loophole companies

are exempt from disclosing chemicals involve. normally under the clean water act this would be required. >> there are i think 1260 something chemicals that could be added to this. >> i never had no problems until the gas company when i started having problems. all my calfs for 2008, eight live, ten dead, four blind, stillborn, and one had a cleft pallett and that's when they drank that water when they drilled up here. >> the calf that died there. the mother didn't even clean it up. and the gas company says, there's nothing wrong with the water. but it killed the cattle and it will kill the people next. >> there are other real issues. according to a report published in october 2013 by san jose state university, fracking wells