43

those detailed through CDC/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) Workplace Supported Recovery initiative and New Hampshire’s Recovery-Friendly Workplace initiative, which was launched with funding from the Department of Labor and has been adopted by a number of states. Participants in that working group include SAMHSA, the Departments of Commerce, the Department of Labor, NIOSH, and the VA. This existing interagency process works to develop and implement plans for establishing, expanding, and enhancing employment-related initiatives for people in recovery and people with active SUD, including through broader adoption of approaches such as the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) supported employment model. In addition, with support from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Commerce, the Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCOC), and selected other agencies, it will explore opportunities to promote the adoption of recovery-ready workplace policies within the federal government. ONDCP should also apply these insights to the Administration's interagency process on expanding employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated persons. Recognizing that the majority of Americans with SUD are employed,309 it is essential that more employers adopt recovery-ready workplace policies to prevent substance use in the workforce, encourage help seeking by employees with SUD, provide needed accommodations and workplace supports for those in treatment and recovery, and build recovery-supportive workplace cultures—all of which enhance public health and public safety. D. Reduce legal, regulatory, policy, and practice barriers to recovery. (Agencies Involved: DOL/ETA, ODEP; DOJ/DEA, OJP; HHS/ASPE, CMS, IHS, OASH, SAMHSA; HUD; VA/VHA) To improve outcomes over the long-term, we must recommit to shifting the focus of drug policy from punishment and social exclusion to healing and community reintegration. That is how we will begin to turn the tide, building recoveryready communities that can effectively respond to and heal from drug use, addiction, and overdose. « « « « « « 74 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY In today’s interconnected world, even criminal charges that are dropped and convictions that are vacated can leave an indelible electronic record. Beyond that, drug-related criminal convictions can carry unique, often lifelong penalties that go above and beyond one’s sentence. Known as collateral consequences of conviction, these add-on restrictions or penalties are common in both state and federal law. Examples include bans on access to public housing or public assistance, ineligibility to vote or to serve on a jury, temporary or permanent ineligibility for federal student aid, ineligibility for employment in health care facilities or within a state government, or ineligibility to obtain a professional license—even in a field in which one had long practiced as a licensed professional. Additionally, a wide range of barriers associated with rules, policies, practices, and attitudes that do not meet the definition of collateral consequences of conviction can create substantial barriers to rejoining and fully contributing to the community.5 As noted in the Criminal Justice and Public Safety chapter, collateral consequences may serve a necessary public safety function when there is a nexus between the restriction and a harm to be prevented, such as barring convicted sex offenders from employment where they may have unsupervised interactions with children or other vulnerable individuals. However, as the United States Commission on Civil Rights has noted, when they do not serve a necessary public safety function and are not narrowly tailored, they undermine public safety by preventing successful community reintegration.310 Specific actions to address collateral consequences of conviction are described in the criminal justice chapter. SAMHSA, HUD, OJP, ED, DOL, and ONDCP will co-lead an interagency workgroup that would identify legal, regulatory, and policy barriers to treatment, housing, employment, health care, education, and public accommodations and develop and implement and action plans to address them. The workgroup would report annually to interagency partners on progress toward the objectives identified in its plan and shall develop recommendations, including, potential statutory changes. 5 For example, 42 U.S. Code § 13661, Screening of applicants for federally assisted housing, makes individuals determined to have manufactured, sold, distributed, used or possessed a controlled substance ineligible for public housing for a period of three years and prohibits admission of households to federally assisted housing or federally assisted housing programs if the housing agency or property owner has reasonable cause to believe that any member of the household’s “illegal use (or pattern of illegal use) of a controlled substance, or abuse (or pattern of abuse) of alcohol, may interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.” The statute does not require conviction in a court of law for such perceived offenses. See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title42/pdf/USCODE-2015-title42- 

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14  15   16   17   18   19   20   21    22   23   24   25  26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49  50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65