Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Ban the Box

Ban the Box refers to a set of American policies and advocacy efforts designed to restrict employers from inquiring about applicants' criminal histories on initial job applications, with the stated objective of enhancing employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated individuals by postponing background checks until after a conditional offer or later hiring stages.^[1] Originating in the late 1990s—Hawaii enacted the first such measure in 1998—the initiative gained traction through civil rights and reentry organizations, leading to widespread adoption by over 35 U.S. states, hundreds of cities and counties, and federal agencies by the mid-2010s, often under the umbrella of "fair chance" hiring laws that mandate individualized assessments of criminal records if disclosed.^[2] Proponents argue these reforms reduce automatic disqualification based on past convictions, potentially lowering recidivism by facilitating reintegration into the workforce; however, rigorous empirical analyses, including quasi-experimental studies exploiting policy timing variations, reveal limited or null effects on overall employment rates for ex-offenders and significant unintended consequences, such as heightened statistical discrimination where employers, lacking direct criminal history signals, infer higher risk from observable traits like age, race, and ethnicity, thereby reducing callbacks and job offers for young, low-skilled Black and Hispanic men by 3-5 percentage points.^[3]^[4]^[5] Field experiments corroborate this, documenting widened racial callback gaps post-implementation, as employers statistically discriminate against demographics correlated with higher offense probabilities, countering the policies' aim of equity and sometimes exacerbating disparities in labor market outcomes.^[4]^[6] These findings, drawn from peer-reviewed economic research, underscore causal mechanisms rooted in information asymmetry rather than overt bias, prompting debates over whether delayed disclosure truly advances reentry or inadvertently harms the very populations it targets.^[3]^[5]

Definition and Core Elements

Policy Mechanics

Ban the Box policies prohibit employers from asking applicants about criminal convictions or arrest history on initial job applications, typically through removal of the associated checkbox or question.^[7]^[8] These rules generally apply to public employers and, in numerous jurisdictions, to private employers with 10 or more employees, depending on local statutes.^[9] Employers may inquire into criminal history and perform background checks only after advancing the applicant to later hiring stages, such as following an initial interview or issuance of a conditional job offer.^[10]^[11] For instance, in Minnesota's policy enacted in 2009, public employers must defer such inquiries until an applicant is deemed qualified and selected for an interview. Many policies further require employers to provide applicants notice of adverse actions based on records and an opportunity to contest findings. Unlike record expungement or sealing statutes, Ban the Box measures do not alter or eliminate criminal records themselves, preserving employers' ability to access and evaluate them post-initial screening while postponing the inquiry to prioritize qualifications assessment.^[2]^[12] Some implementations incorporate mandates for individualized assessments prior to denial of employment, considering factors including offense recency, severity relative to job duties, and rehabilitation evidence.^[13]

Variations Across Jurisdictions

At the federal level, Ban the Box policies under the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2021 restrict executive branch agencies and federal contractors from inquiring about an applicant's criminal history prior to extending a conditional job offer, with regulations finalized and effective September 1, 2023.^[14] This scope is limited to federal employment and contracting processes, excluding most private sector employers unless they hold federal contracts, and includes exemptions for positions requiring early disclosure due to national security, law enforcement duties, or access to sensitive information.^[14]^[15] State-level implementations diverge substantially, with 37 states adopting policies as of 2023, though applicability ranges from public-sector-only mandates in states like Georgia and Wisconsin to broader requirements encompassing private employers in jurisdictions such as California and New York.^[7]^[9] California's Fair Chance Act, effective January 1, 2018, applies to private employers with five or more employees, prohibiting criminal history questions before a conditional offer and mandating an individualized assessment for any adverse decisions based on convictions, while exempting roles where federal or state law requires pre-offer checks, such as in healthcare or finance.^[16]^[17] In contrast, states like Connecticut exempt small businesses with fewer than five employees from private-sector coverage, narrowing the policy's reach.^[18] Additional variations include employee thresholds for applicability—often 10 to 15 workers in states like Illinois or Massachusetts—and extensions beyond employment to housing providers or occupational licensing in places like Hawaii and Rhode Island, where landlords or licensing boards must delay conviction inquiries.^[9]^[11] Exemptions for high-security or fiduciary roles, such as law enforcement, banking, or positions involving minors or the elderly, are prevalent across states, allowing earlier inquiries when tied to legal necessities or business risks.^[19] This patchwork creates compliance challenges for multistate employers, as policies lack uniformity in timing, assessment procedures, and sectoral extensions.^[20]

Historical Development

Origins in Advocacy (Pre-2010)

The Ban the Box campaign originated in the early to mid-2000s as a grassroots and nonprofit-driven effort to reform hiring practices for individuals returning from incarceration, amid surging U.S. prison populations and reentry challenges. Nonprofits including the National Employment Law Project (NELP) and the Legal Action Center (LAC) spearheaded advocacy, arguing that early criminal history inquiries created automatic barriers unrelated to job qualifications, exacerbating unemployment among ex-offenders.^[9]^[21]^[22] This push coincided with the aftermath of the incarceration boom, during which annual state prison releases grew from 405,400 in 1990 to 592,000 in 2001, fueling demand for reentry programs to address high recidivism—where rates for released prisoners showed little decline between 1999 and 2004 cohorts, with many rearrested within years.^[23]^[24] Early implementations targeted public sector hiring in major cities, focusing on delaying or removing criminal history questions from initial applications. Boston adopted an ordinance in the mid-2000s that eliminated background checks for many city jobs and extended the policy to contractors, marking an initial success in public employment reform.^[25]^[26] Similarly, Philadelphia implemented ban the box measures around 2007 for municipal positions, part of a wave including San Francisco and others that prioritized qualifications over upfront disclosures.^[22] These local policies served as models, influenced by reentry advocacy responding to the structural barriers faced by the roughly 600,000 annual releases in the 2000s.^[23] Pre-2010 pilots in locales like Hawaii and Newark tested broader applications, building on earlier precedents. Hawaii enacted the nation's first statewide restriction in 1998, barring private employers from inquiring about criminal history before a bona fide job offer, providing an early framework for delaying checks.^[27] Newark, under Mayor Cory Booker, advanced similar public hiring reforms by the late 2000s, prohibiting inquiries until after a conditional offer and influencing subsequent urban testing grounds.^[28]^[29] These efforts highlighted the campaign's incremental strategy, grounded in addressing recidivism drivers like employment deficits amid static re-arrest patterns from the 1990s onward.^[24]

Expansion in States and Cities (2010-2019)

Following the initial advocacy efforts of the late 2000s, adoption of ban-the-box policies accelerated markedly in the 2010s at the state and local levels. By June 2015, 23 states had enacted statewide policies, primarily applying to public employment, while over 100 cities and counties had implemented similar ordinances, often extending to private employers in some jurisdictions.^[30] This proliferation was fueled by growing recognition of employment barriers for individuals with criminal records, with early movers including Minnesota, which in May 2013 signed legislation (S.F. 523) prohibiting private employers from inquiring about criminal history on initial applications, effective January 1, 2014.^[31] Federal developments under the Obama administration provided additional impetus. In April 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued enforcement guidance emphasizing that blanket exclusions based on criminal records could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly if disproportionately affecting protected groups, which encouraged states and localities to delay such inquiries.^[32] This was complemented by a November 2015 executive order directing federal agencies to ban criminal history questions from initial applications, and subsequent 2016 Office of Personnel Management rules extending similar delays to federal contractors, signaling national momentum that influenced subnational adoptions.^[33] Urban centers emerged as key adopters, with San Francisco enacting its Fair Chance Ordinance in 2013, effective August 2014, which barred employers with 20 or more employees from inquiring about convictions before a conditional offer and required individualized assessments thereafter.^[34] Similarly, nearby Oakland passed a comparable ordinance in 2012, effective for private employers by 2013, mandating removal of criminal history checkboxes from applications. California further expanded statewide coverage with Assembly Bill 1008 (the Fair Chance Act) in October 2017, effective January 1, 2018, prohibiting employers with five or more employees from pre-offer criminal inquiries and mandating individualized assessments for any disqualifications based on convictions.^[35] By the late 2010s, the National Employment Law Project documented 37 states plus the District of Columbia with ban-the-box policies, alongside over 150 cities and counties, reflecting a patchwork of laws varying in scope from public-only mandates to broader private-sector requirements with waiting periods or assessment protocols.^[9] This wave marked a shift toward standardized fair-chance hiring practices, though enforcement and compliance remained decentralized across jurisdictions.

Federal and Recent Adoptions (2020-Present)

The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019, enacted on December 20, 2019, as Division B of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, extended ban-the-box requirements to federal hiring processes. This legislation prohibits federal agencies from inquiring about an applicant's criminal history—including arrests, charges, or convictions—until after the applicant has received a conditional offer of employment, with exceptions for positions involving national security or law enforcement.^[15] The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued final implementing regulations on September 1, 2023, which became effective on October 2, 2023, building on OPM's prior 2016 ban-the-box policy and applying to federal contractors with civilian or defense contracts exceeding certain thresholds.^[14]^[36] At the state level, ban-the-box adoptions have been sparse since 2020, with no significant expansion beyond the 37 states that had enacted such policies by 2021.^[9] As of 2025, the number of states with statewide ban-the-box laws remains at 37, plus the District of Columbia, reflecting stalled legislative momentum amid ongoing debates over policy effectiveness.^[37] Notable local developments include expansions, such as New York City's amendments to its Fair Chance Act on January 10, 2021, which broadened applicability to more employers and strengthened enforcement mechanisms.^[38] However, no new statewide mandates have emerged in recent years, contrasting with the more rapid proliferation observed in the 2010s. Voluntary corporate adoption of ban-the-box practices has persisted alongside mandatory laws, though post-2020 initiatives have not markedly increased.^[9] While earlier supporters like Starbucks maintained fair chance hiring commitments from 2015 onward, broader private sector shifts have been limited, with compliance driven primarily by jurisdictional requirements rather than widespread new pledges.^[11] As of 2025, no major policy reversals have occurred at federal or state levels, but the absence of fresh adoptions underscores a plateau in expansion efforts.^[7]

Proponents' Rationale

Fair Chance Hiring Claims

Proponents of "ban the box" policies maintain that postponing inquiries about criminal history until after an initial assessment of qualifications ensures ex-offenders receive consideration based on merit rather than immediate prejudice from their records.^[9] This framing emphasizes a "second chance" in the hiring process, where applicants avoid automatic rejection solely for disclosing a record on early applications, thereby mitigating the stigma that often leads employers to discard resumes preemptively.^[39] Advocacy organizations, including the National Employment Law Project (NELP), argue that upfront criminal history questions create unnecessary hurdles, preventing candidates from demonstrating relevant skills, experience, and rehabilitation efforts before background checks occur.^[40] NELP contends that such policies foster fair chance hiring by shifting focus to job-related competencies initially, which they claim levels the playing field for individuals whose records might otherwise overshadow their potential contributions.^[41] These claims also invoke disparate impact liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting that early-stage record inquiries perpetuate discriminatory barriers, as criminal justice involvement disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic applicants compared to whites.^[32] With estimates indicating 70 to 100 million U.S. adults—roughly one in three—hold some criminal record, proponents highlight how these practices exclude a vast segment of the workforce from even preliminary opportunities.^[42]^[39]

Anticipated Benefits on Employment and Recidivism

Proponents argue that Ban the Box policies foster higher employment rates among ex-offenders by delaying criminal history inquiries, allowing candidates to demonstrate qualifications first and increasing callback rates in initial screening stages. This is theorized to particularly benefit low-risk individuals with older or minor convictions, who may secure interviews and offers before later-stage background checks reveal records, based on pre-policy estimates from audit studies showing criminal disclosures reduce employer callbacks by 40-50%. Early pilots in jurisdictions like Durham County, North Carolina, in the 2010s were claimed to yield modest employment gains, with hires of applicants with records rising from about 2% to over 15% post-implementation, supporting expectations of broader workforce reintegration for non-violent ex-offenders.^[43] Such anticipated employment upticks are projected to curb recidivism through established criminological links between stable jobs and desistance from crime, where unemployment serves as a key risk factor for reoffending due to economic desperation and lack of routine. Advocates cite longitudinal data indicating employed ex-offenders recidivate at rates as low as 16% over three years, compared to 52% for the unemployed, attributing this to employment's role in providing financial independence and social ties that deter criminal relapse.^[44] Peer-reviewed analyses reinforce this causal pathway, finding that post-release work—especially full-time roles—lowers re-arrest probabilities by 20-30% via reduced idleness and improved life-course stability, a mechanism proponents extend to Ban the Box's hiring effects.^[45] Broader societal gains include economic productivity from reintegrated workers contributing taxes and consumer spending, rather than drawing on welfare or incarceration costs estimated at $30,000-50,000 per inmate annually. By shrinking the idle ex-offender population, policies are expected to alleviate taxpayer burdens from recidivism-driven reincarceration, while enhancing public safety through lower crime rates tied to employment stability, as articulated in advocacy testimony emphasizing expanded applicant pools and fiscal returns.^[43] These projections hinge on the untested assumption that delayed disclosures translate to sustained hires without employer workarounds, positioning employment as a primary lever for long-term desistance.

Implementation Details

United States Federal Level

At the federal level, there is no comprehensive statutory prohibition on inquiring about criminal history in initial job applications for private employers, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued enforcement guidance on April 25, 2012, advising employers to avoid blanket exclusions based on criminal records to prevent disparate impact discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[32] This guidance recommends individualized assessments considering the nature of the offense, time elapsed, and job-relatedness, rather than delaying inquiries outright, and applies to all covered employers including federal contractors.^[32] The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019, enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, imposes a stricter "ban the box" requirement on federal executive branch agencies by prohibiting requests for criminal history record information from applicants prior to extending a conditional offer of employment.^[14] The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finalized implementing regulations on September 1, 2023, effective October 2, 2023, which apply to competitive and excepted service positions but exempt roles requiring suitability or security investigations before a conditional offer, such as those involving national security or law enforcement duties.^[14] Agencies must report to OPM semi-annually on any adverse actions taken based on post-offer criminal history inquiries, including the offenses cited and applicant demographics.^[14] For federal contractors, the Fair Chance Act mandates that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council issue rules prohibiting inquiries into applicants' criminal history before a conditional offer, with compliance required for contracts entered into or modified after December 20, 2021.^[46] These provisions extend limited ban-the-box protections to private-sector jobs funded by federal contracts but do not broadly regulate non-contractor private employers, leaving most hiring practices governed by state laws or voluntary compliance with EEOC guidance.^[46]

State and Local Policies

As of 2021, 37 states had enacted ban-the-box policies restricting when employers may inquire about applicants' criminal histories, with significant variation in applicability and timing.^[9] Approximately 14 states extend coverage to both public and private employers, while 22 states limit policies to public sector jobs and government contractors.^[47] These differences reflect diverse legislative priorities, with some jurisdictions mandating delays until after an initial interview and others until after a conditional job offer. California's Fair Chance Act, effective January 1, 2018, expanded ban-the-box requirements to private employers with five or more employees, prohibiting conviction history inquiries before a conditional offer and mandating an individualized assessment for any adverse actions based on records.^[16] Minnesota's statute, signed in 2013 and effective January 1, 2014, provides broad coverage for private employers by barring criminal history questions on applications or before an initial interview, excluding certain positions in law enforcement or roles requiring specific certifications.^[48] In states like Texas, policies remain confined to public employers and select localities, such as Harris County's 2022 adoption for county jobs, without a statewide private-sector mandate as of 2025.^[49]^[50] Municipal ordinances demonstrate further stringency diversity, with over 150 cities and counties implementing fair-chance hiring rules by the early 2020s.^[9] San Francisco's Fair Chance Ordinance, phased in with private-sector provisions effective August 13, 2014, delays criminal history disclosures until after a conditional offer for most employers, while requiring notice and assessment processes for denials.^[51] Enforcement mechanisms across these policies typically involve civil penalties administered by state or local agencies, alongside rights for applicants to pursue lawsuits for violations, though thresholds and remedies vary by jurisdiction.^[17]

Compliance and Enforcement Challenges

Employers face significant operational hurdles in redesigning job applications to remove criminal history inquiries, which often requires updating online forms, integrating compliance checks into applicant tracking systems, and retraining human resources personnel on revised protocols.^[52]^[53] Inadvertent violations occur frequently with automated online applications that may retain legacy questions or trigger background prompts prematurely, complicating adherence across multi-jurisdictional operations where policies vary by state and locality.^[54] Compliance training is essential but uneven; for instance, nearly half of hiring managers in a 2016 Minnesota study were unaware of ban-the-box requirements, relying on ad hoc guidance from HR or legal teams rather than systematic education.^[54] Litigation risks intensify enforcement challenges, as employers must navigate potential Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) actions under Title VII for disparate impact discrimination if criminal screening practices are deemed non-job-related, while simultaneously facing negligent hiring lawsuits if delayed background checks allow hires with relevant criminal histories to cause harm.^[55]^[56] Such suits have resulted in substantial penalties, including over $500,000 in fines for violations in Washington, D.C., in 2019, highlighting the dual exposure to regulatory penalties and civil claims for workplace injuries attributable to unvetted employees.^[37]^[57] Exemptions for sensitive positions, such as those involving finance or public safety, permit earlier inquiries but impose a burden on employers to demonstrate job-relatedness and business necessity under federal guidelines, often requiring documented validation studies or risk assessments that small firms may lack resources to conduct.^[56] Proving this threshold proves challenging in practice, as policies demand individualized assessments tying specific convictions to role risks, yet varying state interpretations can lead to disputes over what constitutes sufficient evidence.^[39] Enforcement remains hampered by data gaps and limited monitoring; reports from the 2020s indicate persistent noncompliance, with approximately 20% of employers in studied jurisdictions failing to adhere fully, attributed to inadequate proactive audits and capped fines that deter rigorous oversight.^[54] Resource constraints at enforcement agencies, such as underfunded state human rights departments, further erode tracking capabilities, resulting in reliance on complainant-driven investigations rather than comprehensive adherence surveys.^[54]

Empirical Evidence on Outcomes

Effects on Ex-Offender Employment

Empirical evaluations of Ban the Box (BTB) policies have generally found no significant increase in employment rates for individuals with criminal records. A study of a 2013 Seattle ordinance, which delayed criminal background checks until after an initial interview, analyzed administrative employment data and reported negligible impacts on ex-offenders' labor market outcomes, including no detectable rise in hiring or wages.^[58] Similarly, broader reviews of BTB implementations indicate that while the policy shifts criminal record inquiries to later hiring stages, it does not translate into higher callback or employment probabilities for applicants with records, as employers often reject them upon eventual disclosure.^[59] Field experiments and quasi-experimental analyses reinforce this pattern. Research using audit studies in New Jersey and New York City before and after BTB adoption showed that concealing criminal histories initially reduced callbacks for applicants with records by encouraging employers to use demographic proxies for screening, resulting in net fewer interview opportunities overall for this group.^[4] Aggregate employment data from states with BTB laws similarly reveal no employment gains for ex-offenders, with some analyses documenting short-term dips attributable to heightened statistical discrimination during the pre-disclosure phase.^[60] Recent assessments, including those up to 2024, confirm these neutral or modestly negative effects, attributing them to unresolved information asymmetries that prompt employers to avoid risky hires without reliable early signals of applicant quality.^[61] From a causal perspective, BTB's failure to boost ex-offender employment stems from its limited alteration of underlying hiring incentives: employers, facing legal liabilities for negligent hiring, respond to hidden records by broadening avoidance of high-risk profiles rather than extending more chances, leading to deferred but persistent barriers.^[3] Local pilots, such as those in select cities, have yielded mixed but predominantly neutral results on hiring rates, with no robust evidence of sustained gains even in targeted sectors.^[62] These findings hold across peer-reviewed evaluations prioritizing difference-in-differences designs and matched administrative records, underscoring BTB's ineffectiveness in directly enhancing job access for those with convictions.^[6]

Impacts on Racial and Demographic Groups

Empirical studies indicate that Ban the Box (BTB) policies have disproportionately harmed employment prospects for young, low-skilled Black and Hispanic men, primarily through statistical discrimination by employers who infer higher criminal history risks from demographic proxies such as race, age, and low education levels.^[60] A 2016 analysis by economists Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen, using U.S. Census and American Community Survey data from 2003–2011 across jurisdictions adopting BTB, found that these policies reduced the employment probability by 3.4 percentage points (a 5.1% decline) for young Black men without college degrees, with similar negative effects for young Hispanic men, while showing no significant impact or slight positives for comparable White men.^[60] This pattern aligns with causal mechanisms where delaying criminal history disclosure prompts employers to screen out applicants from groups statistically more likely to have records, exacerbating racial employment gaps rather than reducing them.^[63] Field experiments corroborate these findings, demonstrating widened racial disparities in hiring callbacks post-BTB. In a 2018 study by Amanda Y. Agan and Sonja B. Starr, researchers sent fictitious resumes to employers in jurisdictions with and without BTB, revealing that the Black-White callback gap increased from about 45% to over 50% in BTB areas, as employers presumed higher criminal risk among Black applicants without direct record checks.^[64] Similar evidence from a 2022 J-PAL evaluation highlights how BTB reinforced employer stereotypes associating young Black and Hispanic men with criminality, leading to fewer callbacks for these demographics despite the policy's aim to mitigate bias.^[65] While BTB proponents anticipated benefits for racial minorities given disproportionate incarceration rates—Blacks comprising 33% of the prison population despite being 13% of the U.S. demographic as of 2020—data show no net employment gains for ex-offenders overall and unintended harms to non-offenders in affected groups.^[66] Recent critiques, including a 2025 revisit of Doleac-Hansen by other researchers correcting for miscoded BTB laws, suggest the negative effects may be less pronounced than initially estimated but still affirm statistical discrimination risks for minority low-skill workers.^[67] Across demographics, women and older workers appear largely unaffected, as their lower baseline criminal record prevalence reduces proxy screening incentives.^[6]

Influences on Recidivism and Public Safety

A National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Doleac and Hansen (2018) analyzed administrative data from multiple U.S. jurisdictions adopting Ban the Box policies and found a statistically significant increase in recidivism rates among recently released prisoners, with an estimated 3.4 percentage point rise in the probability of reoffending within one year—equivalent to roughly a 4-5% relative increase over baseline rates exceeding 20% in affected cohorts.^[68] The authors attribute this to employers facing higher effective risks from uninformed initial hires, resulting in employment instability upon later record disclosure, which correlates with elevated reoffending risks in longitudinal prison release data.^[68] Subsequent research reinforces these findings with evidence of crime-type specific effects. A 2025 PubMed Central study using state-level panel data from 2010-2022 identified negative spillovers from Ban the Box laws covering both private and public employers, including a 7-12% uptick in drug offense arrests among ex-offenders in adopting areas, linked to deferred vetting permitting riskier placements without upfront mitigation.^[69] Similarly, Sherrard (2020) examined Texas prison records post-policy implementation and reported no overall recidivism change but significant increases for drug and property crime recidivists, suggesting selective hiring blind spots exacerbate vulnerabilities in high-risk subgroups.^[70] Countervailing claims of recidivism declines appear in some advocacy-oriented reports, such as a 2015 Colorado policy analysis asserting lower reoffending via improved job access, yet these rely on correlational local data without causal controls or national benchmarks, limiting generalizability against more rigorous difference-in-differences designs in peer-reviewed work.^[71] Causal mechanisms underscore that while employment correlates inversely with reoffending in meta-analyses of reentry programs, policies obscuring records disrupt informed risk assessment, potentially fostering concealment incentives and reducing deterrent effects from accountability, as evidenced by persistent high baseline recidivism (over 75% within five years per federal Bureau of Justice Statistics tracking).^[68]

Criticisms and Unintended Consequences

Statistical Discrimination and Proxy Screening

Economic theory posits that "Ban the Box" (BTB) policies, by prohibiting early inquiries into criminal history, induce employers to engage in statistical discrimination using observable proxies that correlate with incarceration risk, such as applicant age, race, and residential zip code.^[72] In the absence of direct criminal record signals on initial applications, rational employers infer higher risk for demographic groups with empirically elevated average criminality rates—young black and Hispanic men, for instance—leading to coarser screening that disadvantages even low-risk individuals within those groups. This mechanism aligns with causal models of asymmetric information, where delayed disclosure reduces the efficiency of matching qualified candidates to jobs, as employers substitute imperfect proxies for precise data, pooling high- and low-risk applicants early and rejecting based on group averages.^[72] Field experiments provide empirical support for this shift. In a study auditing employer responses to fictitious resumes in New Jersey and New York City—before and after local BTB adoptions in 2015—Agan and Starr found that the black-white callback gap for young male applicants (under age 30) expanded from 25% pre-BTB to 52% post-BTB, with black callbacks falling by 27 percentage points relative to whites. Similar patterns emerged for zip codes associated with higher crime rates, where callbacks declined post-BTB, indicating employers increasingly screened on neighborhood as a proxy for unobserved criminality.^[73] These effects were concentrated among low-skill jobs, where criminal background checks are most relevant, and persisted despite no overall change in employer inquiry practices later in hiring. Subsequent analyses replicate and extend these findings, attributing the callback declines to inference-based biases rather than other factors. Doleac and Hansen's examination of Los Angeles BTB implementation showed a 7-16% drop in employment rates for young black men, driven by statistical discrimination on race and age as substitutes for criminal history.^[72] When criminal records eventually surface during interviews—after initial screening—rejection rates rise for those with histories, but the prior proxy-based filtering already excludes many clean-record applicants from reaching that stage, amplifying mismatches and reducing informative signaling about individual rehabilitation or non-offending status.^[6] Critiques from advocacy groups, such as claims that these studies overstate discrimination by ignoring broader hiring trends, lack peer-reviewed rigor and fail to counter the experimental evidence of causal BTB effects on proxy use.^[74]

Employer Costs and Hiring Risks

Ban the Box policies postpone criminal background inquiries until after a conditional job offer, thereby elevating employers' exposure to negligent hiring claims. Negligent hiring doctrine holds employers liable for third-party harms caused by employees if the employer knew or should have known of disqualifying risks through reasonable screening.^[75] By delaying checks, employers risk onboarding individuals with violent or theft-related convictions undetected initially, potentially resulting in lawsuits for workplace assaults, fraud, or other incidents.^[57] For example, a hotel settled a negligent hiring suit for $675,000 after employing a former inmate with a relevant record who assaulted a coworker, a scenario experts link to restricted early screening.^[56] Empirical analyses indicate employers perceive such policies as heightening litigation risks absent protective measures like rehabilitation certificates, which serve as safeguards against suits and reputational damage.^[6] These restrictions also generate administrative overhead by necessitating preliminary evaluations—such as interviews and skill assessments—without criminal history data, followed by targeted rescreening of shortlisted candidates. This sequential process raises operational costs in time, personnel, and verification fees, disproportionately affecting small businesses with constrained resources.^[76] Although proponents claim expanded applicant pools could offset expenses, critics contend the laws impose unquantified burdens, with scant empirical quantification available to assess the net fiscal impact. Delayed filtering further contributes to hiring mismatches, where candidates advancing past initial stages later fail background reviews, prompting terminations and elevated turnover. In low-wage sectors with inherently high churn rates, such disruptions amplify recruitment, onboarding, and productivity losses for employers.^[77] This inefficiency stems from incomplete information at decision points, leading to investments in hires ultimately deemed unsuitable upon full disclosure.^[6]

Overall Policy Ineffectiveness Based on Data

Empirical evaluations, drawing on causal identification strategies such as difference-in-differences exploiting staggered policy adoptions, consistently demonstrate that Ban the Box policies fail to deliver sustained improvements in employment for ex-offenders. A 2019 review of the accumulated literature concludes that these interventions yield no net employment gains for individuals with criminal records and may reduce callbacks or hiring probabilities in practice. This assessment synthesizes multiple studies, prioritizing those with robust controls for confounding factors like local labor market conditions over anecdotal or non-causal evidence. Recent analyses as of 2024 reinforce this pattern, showing null or transient effects on post-release job attainment without long-term divergence from counterfactual outcomes absent the policy.^[6]^[78] On recidivism, causal estimates reveal no meaningful reductions and, in several cases, elevated reoffending risks attributable to diminished hiring prospects. For instance, policies correlate with increased criminal activity in affected jurisdictions, as measured by arrest rates post-implementation, with effect sizes implying 1-5% upticks in low-skilled cohorts. A 2025 study further links Ban the Box to heightened drug-related recidivism indicators, including a 43% rise in drug mortality two years after adoption in some states, suggesting failed deterrence through employment pathways. These findings hold across specifications controlling for pre-trends and economic shocks, underscoring that restricted information flows do not alter underlying incentives for risk-averse employers, thereby perpetuating idleness-linked reoffense cycles.^[69] Aggregating these outcomes, meta-evidence from NBER-affiliated research and peer-reviewed journals establishes net policy harm, where negligible or absent benefits in core metrics are eclipsed by broader labor market distortions and public safety costs. Theoretical alignments with observed data highlight how concealing verifiable risk signals prompts inefficient resource allocation, yielding zero-sum or negative-sum equilibria without addressing root barriers like skill deficits. By 2025, this evidentiary consensus—derived from high-quality, replicable designs—positions Ban the Box as a misdirected intervention, with adoption patterns stabilizing amid accumulating causal refutations rather than expanding amid unverified optimism.^[60]^[5]

Policy Alternatives and Debates

Market-Based Approaches

Market-based approaches to facilitating ex-offender employment emphasize voluntary mechanisms that provide employers with credible signals of rehabilitation or risk mitigation, rather than mandating delays in criminal history inquiries. These include certificates of employability or relief from civil disabilities, which individuals can obtain through administrative or judicial processes to demonstrate reduced recidivism risk based on post-conviction behavior. In New York, established as a model system since the 1970s, certificates of relief are granted for non-violent offenses after a period of good conduct, explicitly signaling to employers that the recipient poses lower future risk, thereby addressing information asymmetries without prohibiting disclosure.^[79] Experimental evidence indicates these certificates reduce hiring stigma more effectively than broad disclosure delays, as they supply affirmative evidence of reform rather than mere omission of records.^[80]^[81] Private sector incentives further support these approaches through programs like fidelity bonding and tax credits, which lower employer-perceived risks without regulatory coercion. The Federal Bonding Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Labor since 1966, offers free or low-cost insurance up to $5,000–$25,000 against theft or dishonesty by at-risk hires, including ex-offenders, for the first six months of employment; uptake has been limited but demonstrates potential when targeted, with recent analyses suggesting direct subsidies could boost hiring by compensating for asymmetric information on individual reliability.^[82]^[83] Similarly, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit provides employers up to $9,600 per eligible ex-felon hire, incentivizing voluntary participation; while general evaluations show modest employment effects, they outperform indiscriminate policies by aligning incentives with firm-specific risk assessments.^[84]^[85] Targeted reentry interventions, such as work-release programs, exemplify market-oriented strategies by fostering pre-release job skills and networks, enabling smoother transitions without distorting post-release information flows. A meta-analysis of ex-offender employment programs found that structured vocational training and job placement reduce recidivism by 10–20% through skill-building, outperforming policies that merely postpone record checks by directly enhancing productivity signals to employers.^[86] In Illinois, participation in work-release correlated with 15–25% lower recidivism rates and higher post-release employment, as participants gain verifiable work histories that mitigate employer hesitancy based on empirical performance rather than mandated nondisclosure.^[87] Nonprofits administering such programs, like those offering transitional jobs, report sustained employment gains when focused on high-risk individuals, contrasting with broader mandates that may induce statistical discrimination by obscuring risk differentiation.^[88] These approaches prioritize causal mechanisms—such as verifiable rehabilitation evidence and risk-sharing—to meet employer informational needs, potentially yielding superior outcomes to uniform restrictions.^[81]

Complementary Reforms

Policies such as record expungement for non-violent offenses have demonstrated potential to enhance employment outcomes for eligible individuals by removing barriers posed by minor convictions, without the broad informational asymmetries introduced by universal delays in criminal history disclosure. A study evaluating Pennsylvania's Act 5, which allows set-asides for certain offenses, found that recipients experienced a 10-15% increase in formal employment rates and reduced recidivism probabilities by up to 13%, particularly among those with low-risk profiles.^[89] These effects stem from enabling legal denial of minor records on applications, fostering verifiable skill demonstration over hidden histories, though uptake remains low at around 6.5% within five years of eligibility due to procedural hurdles.^[90] Vocational skills training programs, when linked to measurable progress and certification, offer another targeted approach by building employable competencies prior to release, addressing causal deficits in human capital rather than obscuring records. Meta-analyses of such interventions indicate reductions in recidivism by 13-43% and employment gains of 10-20% post-release, with stronger outcomes for programs emphasizing industry-specific training and post-release support.^[91] For instance, correctional education initiatives focusing on verifiable credentials, like those in RAND-assessed models, prioritize low-risk offenders and yield higher hiring rates by signaling reduced public safety risks to employers, contrasting with non-discriminating bans that may amplify proxy screening.^[92] Employer incentives, including tax credits for hiring verified low-risk ex-offenders, further complement these by aligning economic motivations with evidence-based risk assessment. The federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit provides up to $2,400 per qualified ex-felon hired within one year of conviction or release, while simulations show a 30% hiring boost from similar credits and 37% from rehabilitation certificates affirming post-conviction progress.^[93]^[92] These measures, unlike blanket prohibitions, allow differentiation between non-violent, rehabilitated candidates—who face empirically lower recidivism—and those with violent histories posing ongoing threats, as data indicate violent offenders recidivate at rates 20-50% higher than non-violent counterparts.^[94] RAND evaluations underscore rehabilitation-focused incentives over inquiry restrictions, noting the former's superior efficacy in boosting employment without unintended increases in statistical discrimination or crime rates.^[92]

References

[1]
Ban-the-box laws: Fair and effective? - ScienceDirect
Ban-the-box (BTB) laws are a widely used public policy rooted in employment law related to unnecessarily exclusionary hiring practices.
[2]
What Is Ban-The-Box? Laws, Benefits, and Compliance Guide
Apr 23, 2024 · Ban-the-box laws and related fair chance laws were created to help those with criminal records obtain meaningful employment. In 1998, Hawaii was ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[3]
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705880
[4]
Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Racial Discrimination: A Field ...
Aug 2, 2017 · However, our results support the concern that BTB policies encourage racial discrimination: the black-white gap in callbacks grew dramatically ...
[5]
"Ban the Box" does more harm than good - Brookings Institution
May 31, 2016 · Overall, the unintended consequences of “ban the box” are large, and run counter to one of its goals: reducing racial disparities in employment.
[6]
[PDF] Empirical evidence on the effects of Ban the Box policies
Mar 11, 2019 · They find that, consistent with statistical discrimination, credit check bans reduce job-finding rates by 7-16% for black job-seekers.
[7]
Ban the Box - National Conference of State Legislatures
Jun 29, 2021 · Many ban the box policies provide applicants a fair chance at employment by removing conviction and arrest history questions from job applications.Missing: mechanics | Show results with:mechanics
[8]
The Limits of Ban-the-Box Legislation
Mar 14, 2022 · Ban-the-Box limits are limited by lack of awareness, perceived discrimination, and continued discrimination against Black applicants.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[9]
Ban the Box: U.S. Cities, Counties, and States Adopt Fair Hiring ...
Oct 1, 2021 · "Ban the box" policies remove conviction/arrest questions from job applications, delaying background checks until later in the hiring process.
[10]
What are Ban-the-Box Laws? - GoodHire
Aug 28, 2020 · Ban-the-box is a national campaign designed to ban employers from asking questions regarding an applicant's criminal history on initial job application forms.What is Ban-the-Box? · Ban-the-Box States · Ban-the-Box and Your Hiring...Missing: mechanics | Show results with:mechanics
[11]
Ban the Box Laws by State in 2025 - iprospectcheck
Oct 8, 2025 · No criminal history questions on job applications; Background checks only after initial interview; EEOC individualized assessment ...
[12]
What are Ban-the-Box Laws? Definition & What They Mean for ...
Sep 23, 2024 · Ban-the-Box laws are regulations that govern when an employer can ask about a candidate's criminal history during the hiring process.Missing: mechanics | Show results with:mechanics
[13]
Arrest and Conviction Records: Resources for Job Seekers, Workers ...
The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act is a federal law similar to “ban the box” laws in some states and cities around the country that make it illegal to ...Missing: initial | Show results with:initial
[14]
Fair Chance To Compete for Jobs - Federal Register
Sep 1, 2023 · The Fair Chance Act prohibits Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting on their behalf from requesting that an applicant for Federal employment disclose ...
[15]
The Fair Chance to Compete Act Fact Sheet - Treasury
... Ban the Box” rules. With some exceptions, the Fair Chance Act prohibit Federal agencies, like the Department of Treasury from requesting that an applicant ...
[16]
Fair Chance Act | CRD - Civil Rights Department - CA.gov
This law generally prohibits employers with five or more employees from asking a job candidate about conviction history before making a job offer, among other ...
[17]
[PDF] Fair Chance Act: Criminal History and Employment
The Fair Chance Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, is a California law that generally prohibits employers with five or more employees from asking ...
[18]
Ban the Box Laws By State - Paycor
Aug 3, 2021 · No criminal background check until after job offer. Then, employers may only inquire about felony convictions within the past seven years and ...
[19]
Ban the Box Laws: State and Local Variations | Nisar Law Group, P.C.
Apr 2, 2025 · Understand "Ban the Box" laws that limit when employers can ask about criminal history and regulations across different jurisdictions.
[20]
Ban the Box Laws by State and Jurisdiction - Interactive Map
Ban the Box laws vary across jurisdictions. This Ban the Box resource shows when employers can inquire about a candidate's criminal history.
[21]
Beyond "Ban the Box": Four Steps to Build on Fair Chance Hiring
Nov 17, 2015 · Here are four steps for going Beyond Ban the Box to expand opportunities for people with conviction records to work and succeed.Missing: project | Show results with:project
[22]
[PDF] BAN THE BOX TO PROMOTE EX-OFFENDER EMPLOYMENT
In the last year or two (2006-2007), several major cities, including Bos- ton, San Francisco, Chicago, Newark, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Minne- apolis, and ...
[23]
[PDF] Reentry Trends in the United States - Bureau of Justice Statistics
In 2001, 592,000 offenders were released from State prison, a 46% increase over the 405,400 offenders that were released in 1990.
[24]
[PDF] State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America's Prisons
Apr 2, 2011 · Recidivism rates changed little between the 1999 and 2004 release cohorts, despite more than 63,000 more people being discharged from prison in ...
[25]
[PDF] Ban the Box in employment
In Boston, the campaign was successful in eliminating background checks altogether from many City of Boston jobs, and extended. Ban the Box to city contractors.
[26]
[PDF] Major US Cities and Counties Adopt Hiring Policies to Remove ...
The resolution was implemented as a municipal hiring policy, and San Francisco effectively banned the box. Like Boston's ordinance, San Francisco's policy ( ...
[27]
It's Not Just a Box: Understanding How "Ban-the-Box" Laws Go ...
Feb 27, 2017 · In 1998, Hawaii became the first state to “ban the box,” prohibiting private employers from inquiring about a candidate's criminal history ...Missing: newark pilots 2009
[28]
[PDF] Ban the Box - National Employment Law Project
Per ordinance, employers of Newark are prohibited from inquiring about an applicant's criminal history until a conditional offer of employment is extended. The ...Missing: pilots 2009
[29]
[PDF] whitepaper - BAN THE BOX LEGISLATION - BIG
The ordinance mandates that a. Newark employer can only inquire about an applicant's criminal history after a conditional offer is made and after a ...Missing: pilots 2009
[30]
Ban the Box Legislation - BIG
Jun 11, 2015 · Approximately 100 cities/counties and 23 states have adopted Ban the Box policies in recent years.3 While the laws vary in their application ...<|separator|>
[31]
Minnesota Joins a Handful of Other States and Cities to "Ban the ...
May 20, 2013 · On May 13, 2013, Minnesota's governor signed S.F. 523 to preclude private employers from asking job applicants about their criminal history ...
[32]
Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and ... - EEOC
Apr 25, 2012 · The EEOC enforces Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Having a ...
[33]
White House Announces New Commitments to the Fair Chance ...
Nov 30, 2016 · The rule effectively “bans the box” for a significant number of positions in the Federal Government by delaying the point in the hiring process ...
[34]
San Francisco Bans the Box - Hiring Employees with Conviction ...
Mar 2, 2014 · San Francisco's new "Ban the Box" ordinance takes effect on August 13, 2014. On that date, employers with 20 or more employees (regardless ...
[35]
[PDF] The California Fair Chance Act:
The Fair Chance Act, also known as “Ban the Box,” is a new California law meant to ensure that workers with conviction records are more fairly considered ...Missing: exemptions | Show results with:exemptions
[36]
The Fair Chance to Compete Act - careers.state.gov
Jun 21, 2024 · The Fair Chance Act was designed help qualified workers with arrests or conviction records compete fairly for employment in federal agencies.Missing: ban box
[37]
Ban the Box Laws 2025: Complete Compliance Guide - GCheck
Oct 16, 2025 · By 2025, 37 states plus Washington, D.C. have implemented statewide Ban the Box laws reshaping how and when employers can conduct criminal ...
[38]
New York Expands Ban the Box Law - The National Law Review
Jan 29, 2021 · On January 10, 2021, amendments to the New York City Fair Chance Act (“FCA”) – New York City's “ban-the-box” law – were passed into law.Missing: adoptions | Show results with:adoptions
[39]
[PDF] Fair Chance – Ban the Box Toolkit - National Employment Law Project
Removing the “box” from the employment application and delaying inquiry into an applicant's criminal history until later in the process will lower an ...
[40]
People with Records Have Fought Hard to “Ban the Box”
Apr 23, 2024 · While important, I also describe fair chance hiring as one step because much more is needed. Ban the box is not a panacea. It doesn't guarantee ...
[41]
Do 'Ban-the-Box' Laws Help Expand Employers' Candidate Pools?
May 25, 2017 · The best argument for why companies should support “ban-the-box ... fair-chance hiring efforts to expand job opportunities for people with ...
[42]
[PDF] Americans with Criminal Records - The Sentencing Project
As a result, between 70 million and 100 million—or as many as one in three Americans—have some type of criminal record. Having even a minor criminal record, ...
[43]
[PDF] THE BENEFITS OF BAN THE BOX - Congress.gov
The primary objective of the Movement is to dismantle the structural discrimination faced by people with criminal records in society.9 Ban the Box was found to ...<|separator|>
[44]
http://saferfoundation.org/files/documents/Safer%20Recidivism%20Study%202008%20Summary.pdf
[45]
http://www.socsci.umn.edu/~uggen/Uggen_asr_00.pdf
[46]
Congress Passes Landmark 'Ban the Box' Legislation
Dec 17, 2019 · 700000 new job applicants with records will now have fairer chance at federal agency and contractor employment.
[47]
[PDF] The Limits of Ban-the-Box Legislation
Ban-the-Box removes conviction questions from applications, delays background checks, but few job seekers know about it, and knowledge varies by race, gender, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[48]
Minnesota Enacts “Ban the Box Law" Prohibiting Employment ...
May 17, 2013 · Effective January 1, 2014, recent amendments to Minnesota law will restrict the timing of pre-employment inquiries by most private employers ...
[49]
https://www.backgroundchecks.com/compliance-and-legislation/another-texas-county-bans-the-box-for-public-employers
[50]
Ban the Box Laws: An Overview - BALL PLLC
Jan 29, 2025 · As of January 2025, Texas does not have a statewide ban the box law. However, some local jurisdictions have enacted their own regulations.
[51]
San Francisco Law Curtails the Use of Job Applicants' Criminal ...
Effective August 13, 2014, San Francisco employers, city contractors, and city subcontractors may no longer use “check the box” type questions regarding ...
[52]
Ban the Box Laws and Their Impact on Background Screening
This may involve redesigning application forms, revising hiring policies, and training staff on how to handle background checks and criminal history inquiries ...Missing: costs | Show results with:costs
[53]
Ban the Box Laws 2025: State Guide & Policy Impact Explained
Aug 28, 2025 · By 2025, the impact of ban the box is clear: 37 states and more than 150 cities and counties have enacted some form of ban the box policy ( ...
[54]
Compliance Challenges of Ban the Box | WorkRise Network
Aug 23, 2023 · Ban the Box policies, intended to promote equitable hiring practices for those with criminal records, face challenges due to employer noncompliance.
[55]
Bolder, Broader "Ban the Box" Laws: How to Navigate Ever ...
Aug 16, 2021 · Criminal record screens have opened the door to "disparate impact" actions under Title VII—including claims that certain hiring policies ...
[56]
Ban-the-Box Movement Goes Viral - SHRM
Ban-the-box laws require hiring managers to put off asking about a candidate's criminal history until after an interview has been conducted or a provisional job ...Missing: federal | Show results with:federal<|separator|>
[57]
“Ban the Box” Laws & Workplace Violence: An Employer's Failure to ...
May 31, 2018 · In light of the “Ban the Box” legislation that went into effect in California as of January 1, 2018, it is important to examine the law and its ...
[58]
Does Banning the Box Help Ex-Offenders Get Jobs? Evaluating the ...
However, a 2013 Seattle law barring employers from examining job seekers' records until after an initial screening had negligible impacts on ex-offenders' labor ...
[59]
The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Ban the Box
Jan 13, 2021 · ... employment prospects of those with criminal histories, tests for spillover effects ... Does banning the box help ex-offenders get jobs? Evaluating ...
[60]
Does “Ban the Box” Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers? Statistical ...
Jul 28, 2016 · We find that BTB policies decrease the probability of being employed by 3.4 percentage points (5.1%) for young, low-skilled black men.
[61]
Do ban-the-box policies increase the hiring of applicants with ...
Apr 16, 2025 · Indeed, our findings suggest a modest indication of a negative association between the implementation of BTB policies and the hiring of ...Missing: peer | Show results with:peer
[62]
[PDF] NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES BAN-THE-BOX LAWS
Does banning the box help ex-offenders get jobs? Evaluating the effects of a prominent example. Journal of Labor Economics, 39(1). doi:10.1086/708063 ...
[63]
Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal ...
The Unintended Consequences of “Ban the Box”: Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories Are Hidden. Jennifer L. Doleac and ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[64]
BAN THE BOX, CRIMINAL RECORDS, AND RACIAL ...
“Ban the Box” (BTB) policies restrict employers from asking about appli- cants' criminal histories on job applications and are often presented as a means.
[65]
Examining Employer Race-based Discrimination Before and After ...
“Ban the Box” (BTB) policies restrict employers from asking about applicants' criminal histories on job applications and are often presented as a means of ...Missing: screening | Show results with:screening
[66]
[PDF] Ban the Box and Racial Discrimination | Urban Institute
Feb 2, 2017 · Racial discrimination in hiring has been shown to contribute to racial disparities in labor outcomes, as evidenced by empirical studies of gaps ...
[67]
Revisiting the Unintended Consequences of Ban the Box
We revisit the finding in Doleac and Hansen (2020) that BTB causes statistical discrimination against minority men. We correct miscoded BTB laws and show ...
[68]
[PDF] Do Ban the Box Laws Increase Crime?
However, we find no evidence that BTB laws increased property crime among working age African American men, a population that also faces job loss due to ...
[69]
Hidden Costs of Ban the Box Laws: Unraveling the Effects on Drug ...
Jul 19, 2025 · Together, the findings from this study contribute to the literature on the unintended consequences of BTB laws on labor market outcomes and the ...
[70]
'Ban the Box' Policies and Criminal Recidivism by Ryan Sherrard
Jan 10, 2020 · Using administrative prison data, this paper examines the direct effect of BTB policies on rates of criminal recidivism. I find that while BTB ...
[71]
[PDF] Research Shows “Banning the Box” Boosts Employment and ...
Data demonstrates that this reform is an effective approach to boost employment and reduce recidivism rates. Employing People With Records Improves Public ...Missing: proponents | Show results with:proponents
[72]
[PDF] Does “Ban the Box” Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers? Statistical ...
"Ban the box" aims to improve employment for ex-offenders, but may lead employers to avoid interviewing low-skilled, black and Hispanic men, worsening their ...
[73]
Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination
Jun 15, 2016 · Agan, Amanda Y. and Starr, Sonja B., Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination: A Field Experiment (June 14, 2016). U of ...
[74]
Ban-the-Box “Statistical Discrimination” Studies Draw the Wrong ...
Aug 29, 2017 · This includes strategic and well-resourced enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, clean slate reforms that seal old and minor criminal records ...
[75]
An Update on “Negligent Hiring” Claims: What the Employer “Should ...
Sep 28, 2020 · Ban-the-Box laws generally prohibit employers from inquiring into an applicant's criminal background until after an applicant has been selected ...
[76]
The Impact of “Ban the Box” Ordinances on Employers Nationwide
Nov 25, 2018 · Examples of Variance by Locality. Again, though states adopt broad Ban the Box laws, cities and counties may choose to adopt their own ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
[77]
[PDF] The unintended consequences of “ban the box” - Jennifer Doleac
This could increase employment rates for ex-offenders, and thereby decrease racial disparities in employment outcomes. However, this policy does nothing to ...
[78]
[PDF] Local Labor Markets and The Impact of Ban the Box Policies After ...
Jun 24, 2024 · Abstract. This paper estimates the impact of labor demand on the employment and recidivism outcomes of released prisoners.
[79]
[PDF] Heather J. Garretson, Legislating Forgiveness - Boston University
Apr 2, 2024 · New York State has the oldest and most robust certificate system, and is a model for much of the recent certificate legislation. This paper ...
[80]
The Effectiveness of Certificates of Relief as Collateral ...
The present study suggests that certificates of relief may be an effective avenue for reducing the stigma of a criminal record for ex-offenders.
[81]
Forget “ban the box” and give ex-prisoners employability certificates
Dec 15, 2016 · These new findings suggest that employability certificates are a promising alternative to popular “ban-the-box” policies. These policies ...
[82]
Federal Bonding Program - Legal Action Center
The Federal Bonding Program is an incentive program for hiring individuals with conviction records. Some employers may require their employees to be bonded as ...
[83]
Direct incentives may increase employment of people with criminal ...
Aug 25, 2024 · It approximated Ban-the-Box. In both experiments, a $2,400 tax credit and $25,000 insurance against losses from employee dishonesty reduced ...
[84]
[PDF] Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders | Urban Institute
The federal “bonding” program currently provides insurance of up to $5000 for any liabilities that might be incurred by employers who hire ex-offenders. But ...
[85]
[PDF] Experiments into Policies That Might Incentivize Employers to Hire ...
To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the effects of the WOTC for ex-offenders specifically, but existing evidence generally shows that the subsidy program ...
[86]
Ex-offender Employment Programs and Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis
Aug 9, 2025 · services for speciﬁc types of former prisoners. EX-OFFENDER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS AND RECIDIVISM: A META-ANALYSIS 311.
[87]
Recidivism outcomes of Illinois prison work release program ...
Jun 23, 2025 · ... release recidivism and employment among ex-prisoners with a different ... Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis.
[88]
[PDF] General Employment Effects of Ban-the-Box and Certificate of ...
The study finds that before implementation of the BTB law, white applicants with the box had 7% more callbacks than corresponding Black applicants and that the ...Missing: peer | Show results with:peer
[89]
[PDF] Evaluating the Effects of Criminal Record Set-Asides
Mar 26, 2021 · What are the effects on employment and other socioeconomic outcomes? • At what rate do people who obtain expungements subsequently reoffend? • ...
[90]
[PDF] Reduces barriers to employment for people with a criminal record
Mar 23, 2021 · Low uptake: despite the benefits, only 6.5 percent of individuals received expungements within five years of eligibility; (2) Reduced recidivism ...<|separator|>
[91]
The Effects of Vocational Education on Recidivism and Employment ...
Vocational interventions with offenders: Interdisciplinary research, theory, and integration. ... Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis.
[92]
[PDF] Incentivizing Employers to Hire Ex-Offenders | RAND
A post-conviction certificate increases hiring by 37%, a 40% tax credit by 30%, and a guaranteed replacement worker program by 69%.
[93]
Work Opportunity Tax Credit | Internal Revenue Service
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a federal tax credit for employers hiring from targeted groups, generally 40% of up to $6,000 in wages, up to $2,400.Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
[94]
Direct Incentives May Increase Employment of People With Criminal ...
Aug 28, 2023 · Rehabilitation certificates also had beneficial effects on hiring in the Ban-the-Box scenario.Missing: studies | Show results with:studies