Ban the Box and Racial Discrimination: A Review of the Evidence and Policy Recommendations

RACE AND ETHNICITY RESEARCH REPORT Ban the Box and Racial Discrimination A Review of the Evidence and Policy Recommendations Christina Stacy Mychal Cohen February 2017 ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE The nonprofit Urban Institute is dedicated to elevating the debate on social and economic policy. For nearly five decades, Urban scholars have conducted research and offered evidence-based solutions that improve lives and strengthen communities across a rapidly urbanizing world. Their objective research helps expand opportunities for all, reduce hardship among the most vulnerable, and strengthen the effectiveness of the public sector. Copyright © February 2017. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute. Cover image photo via Shutterstock. Contents Acknowledgments iv Ban the Box and Racial Discrimination 1 Job Access for People with a Criminal Record 2 Racial Discrimination in the Labor Market and Justice System 4 Ban the Box 8 Potential Additions to Ban the Box 14 Notes 23 References 25 About the Authors 28 Statement of Independence 29 Acknowledgments This report was funded by the Urban Institute in support of research on issues disproportionately affecting boys and young men of color. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. F unders do not determine research findings or the insights and recommendations of Urban experts. Further information on the Urban Institute’s funding principles is available at www.urban.org/support. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ban the Box and Racial Discrimination Ban-the-box policies, for which employers remove questions about criminal history from applications and delay background checks until later in the hiring process, have gained popularity in recent years. These policies are intended to give people with criminal histories the opportunity to display their qualifications in the hiring process before being assessed—and potentially rejected—based on this history. Over 150 cities and counties and 34 states and Washington, DC, have adopted ban-the-box policies (Doleac and Hansen 2016; Rodriguez and Avery 2016). Many private employers have also voluntarily adopted ban-the box-hiring policies, including Walmart, Target, the Home Depot, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Koch Industries Inc.1 These policies are also being applied outside the workforce context. Some universities have adopted a ban-the-box approach to school applications, and the District of Columbia’s City Council recently approved a law banning the box from housing applications.2 Even some hospitals have voluntarily adopted ban-the-box laws (Thill, Abare, and Fox 2014). Research on ban the box has shown that it increases callback rates for people with criminal records (Agan and Starr 2016). Agan and Starr (2016) find that ban-the-box policies “effectively eliminate” the effect of having a criminal record on receiving a callback. Case studies from specific cities support these results, showing that hiring rates for people with criminal records increased after ban the box was implemented (Atkinson and Lockwood 2014; Berracasa et al. 2016). Additionally, ban the box as a social movement has drawn attention to the plight of people with criminal records and has increased awareness of the challenges they face beyond employment. But recent research has concluded that ban the box also reduces the likelihood that employers call back or hire young black and Latino men (Agan and Starr 2016; Doleac and Hansen 2016). These findings suggest that when information about a person’s criminal history is not present, employers may make hiring decisions based on their perception of the likelihood that the applicant has a criminal history. Racism, harmful stereotypes, and disparities in contact with the justice system may heavily skew perceptions against young men of color. These results do not necessarily mean that ban the box should be eliminated. Additional policies, regulations, and alterations can ensure that ban the box improves employment outcomes for people with criminal histories without causing negative effects on people of color. In this report, we review the evidence on job access for people with criminal records, racial discrimination in the job market and justice system, and the history of ban the box. We also propose policy additions and alterations that may help eliminate the unintended consequences of ban the box on young black and Latino men while maintaining or improving the benefits for people with criminal records. Job Access for People with a Criminal Record Nearly one in three American adults have a criminal record (Goggins and DeBacco 2015). Bias, stigma, and a network of laws that limit the rights and privileges of people with criminal records (Travis 2002) mean that having such a record affects people long after they have served their sentence. With these col