Does 'Ban the Box' Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers?

[NED funded]

TL;DR: Legislation to help convicts find jobs after release from prison is associated with reduced job-finding prospects for non-offending black and Hispanic young men without college degrees.


Does 'Ban the Box' Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers?

A person who can't get a job upon release from prison is more likely to break the law again. But employers don't want to hire ex-offenders—particularly those released recently—because as a group they are less prepared for work life, in worse health, and more likely to misbehave than non-offenders. One proposed way to help ex-offenders find employment and thereby reduce recidivism is "ban the box" (BTB) legislation that forbids employers from including a criminal-record check box on job applications. Because blacks and Hispanics are significantly more likely than whites to be incarcerated during their lifetimes, some BTB proponents claim that this legislation will also reduce racial disparities in employment.

That may not happen, however. In Does 'Ban the Box' Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers? Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories Are Hidden (NBER Working Paper No. 22469), Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen conclude that BTB policies actually reduce work opportunities for young, low-skilled black and Hispanic men with clean records.

"Advocates for these policies seem to think that in the absence of information, employers will assume the best about all job applicants," the researchers write. "This is often not the case." Instead, they report that employers who want to avoid hiring recently incarcerated individuals appear to adopt a strategy of statistical discrimination when denied data about applicants' criminal records: They curtail their interviewing of candidates in demographic groups that contain the greatest numbers of recently released ex-offenders—young, low-skilled, non-college-educated black and Hispanic men.

The researchers analyze individual-level data from the monthly U.S. Current Population Survey from 2004 to 2014 to explore the impact of state and local BTB policies on the probability of employment for black and Hispanic men aged 25-34 without college degrees. Using variation in when different jurisdictions adopted BTB laws to measure employment effects, they conclude that BTB legislation reduced the probability of employment by 5.1 percent among black men and 2.9 percent among Hispanic men.

The size of the BTB effect was smaller in areas of the country where these groups constituted a larger share of the population (the South for blacks, the West for Hispanics), and larger elsewhere. BTB reduced black men's employment probabilities by 7.4 percent in the Northeast, 7.5 percent in the Midwest, and 8.8 percent in the West; similar, albeit lesser, effects were seen for Hispanic men in the Northeast, Midwest, and South.

"These results suggest that the larger the black or Hispanic population, the less likely employers are to use race/ethnicity as a proxy for criminality," the researchers write. The effect also increased when unemployment rates were high. Employment probabilities increased significantly under BTB for highly educated black women and for older, low-skilled black men. Positive but statistically insignificant effects were also seen for whites.

These results are consistent with numerous other studies that have examined the effects of limiting employers' information about employees. "Policymakers cannot simply wish away employers' concerns about hiring those with criminal records," the researchers conclude. "Policies that directly address those concerns—for instance, by providing more information about job applicants with records, or improving the average ex-offender's job-readiness—could have greater benefits without the unintended consequences found here."

—Deborah Kreuze

[Spectral]

This is actually a fairly predictable result - when you take away a heuristic for determining employability ("are you a felon?"), discrimination against groups that have a higher probability of failing that heuristic will increase. Anyone that's surprised by that really doesn't understand the basics of how this works and shouldn't be anywhere near policy-making.

[caervek]

Not surprising really, if employers can't ask an applicant if they have a record anymore and they know that black/hispanic applicants are more likely to have a record then it's only logical that the ones who asked before will instead lean towards hiring white employees.

Looks like an idea that meant well but in practice made things worse.

[Kapadons]

They should allow you ask to if they are a felon. They should then offer payroll tax breaks for hiring and keeping ex felons, like they do for vets and unemployed people on welfare.

[zenkai]

They should allow you ask to if they are a felon. They should then offer payroll tax breaks for hiring and keeping ex felons, like they do for vets and unemployed people on welfare.

I can agree with this.

[nextormento]

Not surprising.
Eliminating one instance of profiling can only make the heuristic cast a wider net.
I don't think the box, or profiling ex felons, should exist. But the way to go about it is making hiring of these individuals more attractive.

[Slybak]

They should allow you ask to if they are a felon. They should then offer payroll tax breaks for hiring and keeping ex felons, like they do for vets and unemployed people on welfare.

Ex-Felons qualify as eligible new hires under the Work Opportunity Tax Credit program. However, it only extends to convictions and/or prison releases that occurred at least one year before the application submission date, and the tax credit for ex-felons caps at $2,400 and 400 hours of work. So it's not a big enough incentive to counter-act the stigma of a felony conviction, especially in long-term hiring, and the eligibility period unnecessarily extends unemployability (and, in turn, the incentive for recidivism).

[TrumpIsPresident]

I like these sorts of conversations.

See normally when you want to discuss Blacks and their criminal activities the truth about things like the astronomic rate of Black crime and the high likelihood of being Black + being a criminal is a truth that gets completely ignored and raged against by, uh, certain people.

But when topics like this come those same people have to now accept and admit those truths because without them they cant make their point here.

--

But do you know what I see here?

I don't see a reason to stop asking for felon status of applicants.

I see a reason to not let criminals loose in the first place.

By admission they're just going to offend again so keep them locked up.

--

And I'll be mother fucking damned if I ever stop doing criminal background checks.

Do any of you realize what a dangerous thing that is?

To potentially allow thieves and brutes into your work place to prey upon your people and your property.

What happens if I hire some thug and there's a disagreement and he does what thugs do which is comes back and assaults (or kills) someone?

I'd be liable morally and/or financially for putting my people at risk by infesting their workplace with a predator.

No, this is fucking insane.

If these moonbats think its such a great idea then why don't they demonstrate it to us themselves.

No background checks for Hillary's Secret Service, and no background checks for the nannys that watch over the children of these liberal elite.

How about that?

Ya, wont be holding my breath.

[Slybak]

I like these sorts of conversations.

See normally when you want to discuss Blacks and their criminal activities the truth about things like the astronomic rate of Black crime and the high likelihood of being Black + being a criminal is a truth that gets completely ignored and raged against by, uh, certain people.

But when topics like this come those same people have to now accept and admit those truths because without them they cant make their point here.

"I find your accusations of racism to be both uncouth and highly inflammatory!"
- SendThemBackToAfrica (@GasTheJews1488)

[TrumpIsPresident]

"I find your accusations of racism to be both uncouth and highly inflammatory!"
- SendThemBackToAfrica (@GasTheJews1488)

What's that from?

[Forogil]

Does the law ban applicants from providing that information anyhow - e.g. in the CV?
Or is that stupid: he states he has never been convicted - must be really violent.
(I would have thought most would indirectly include it - by not having mysterious gaps in your employment records.)

[Baelic]

Considering that a lot of minor crimes are committed as acts of desperation, either economically or socially... Not being able to provide them a means of economic or social improvement is just a recipe for most ex-cons to go back into the vicious cycle all over again.

Personally, I'd hire an ex-con if they were capable of doing the job. I'd certainly take my precautions with the initial probationary period but I'd at least give them a chance.

[Slybak]

What's that from?

Me. It's my generic response to people who are racist as fuck and then complain about being accused of racism.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Me. It's my generic response to people who are racist as fuck and then complain about being accused of racism.

Oh I get it, you're calling me racist.

That's cute.

Your triggering amuses me.

[Belize]

Why not also remove ethnicity from applications too? Like that interviews would be given purely on skill in the first place and ethnicity would only come into play later where skill and ability to perform the job is already factored in.

Idk. Maybe that wouldn't work either.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Why not also remove ethnicity from applications too? Like that interviews would be given purely on skill in the first place and ethnicity would only come into play later where skill and ability to perform the job is already factored in.

Idk. Maybe that wouldn't work either.

Oh no they'll never do that.

Just like they wont ever remove it from college applications.

Race stats are only a "bad thing" when they're used to demonstrate a reality such as crime or merit, but when they're used to give an unfair advantage that's totally acceptable.

[Sesshou]

Why not also remove ethnicity from applications too? Like that interviews would be given purely on skill in the first place and ethnicity would only come into play later where skill and ability to perform the job is already factored in.

Idk. Maybe that wouldn't work either.

You do realize that part of the application is optional right?

[McFuu]

Ban the Box sounds like a stupid idea.
I thought all court documents were a matter of public record anyway, so regardless of admitting to convictions, it's easy enough to find anyway.

[Grym]

It will hurt low skilled workers.

No one really want to hire a criminal, not many people would be willing to give them a second chance. Now that you cannot see if the applicants are felon or not, they will have to judge by first impression and stereotyping.

This legislation probably help some white felon, but will hurt black non-skilled workers.

[Belize]

Ban the Box sounds like a stupid idea.
I thought all court documents were a matter of public record anyway, so regardless of admitting to convictions, it's easy enough to find anyway.

I'm not sure low skill jobs run background checks on all applicants. Easier to put a box, and if you're found lying you'd be fired on the spot.