Is "Ban the Box" Backfiring for Minorities?

With a third of all U.S. citizens having been arrested at some point in their lives and a sizable proportion of those people having some sort of criminal record, it's not surprising that "ban the box" initiatives have gradually gained momentum. The "box" in question here is the one employers use to request criminal history. However, have the various "ban the box" initiatives backfired?

The original aim of "ban the box" initiatives was to eliminate discrimination against those with criminal records, allowing them to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. However, a recent study conducted by the University of Virginia shows that while these initiatives are laudable, they tend to simply push discrimination in a different direction.

Jennifer Doleac is an assistant professor of public policy and economics at the Frank Batten School at the University of Virginia. In the study, she found that groups that were statistically more likely to have criminal records were less likely to be employed when a "ban the box" initiative was approved. Specifically, young black men who did not have college degrees were 3.4 percentage points less likely to be employed, and young Hispanic men who did not have college degrees were 2.3 percentage points less likely to be employed.

Doleac feels that "ban the box" initiatives have backfired. However, proving racial discrimination in individual cases can be extremely hard, even though the practice is illegal throughout the United States. In a similar manner, banning credit checks and similar practices can lead to similar consequences.

Doleac also argues that letting employers know of criminal convictions on a resume can be a good thing in some cases. Naturally, a recent conviction can indicate a potential pattern of behavior that is not desirable to the employer, but a conviction that is several decades old can often be dismissed out of hand, particularly if it did not lead to a custodial sentence.

While "ban the box" initiatives are currently a popular topic, it may be wiser to revisit the logic behind these initiatives. Generally, employers are looking for certain types of people, and those with recent convictions may not necessarily be suited to the job. Consequently, it may be better to allow employers to have more information rather than less.

Doleac suggests that those with recent convictions should state those convictions, but also be given opportunities to access education and rehabilitation that help negate the effects. Of course, this raises the question of who would pay for these programs. Given that imprisonment programs should rehabilitate and reintegrate, and not just punish, it could fall down to state governments to provide such programs.

The point of Doleac's research is clear. "Ban the box" initiatives currently do more harm than good, as they simply lead to further discrimination against groups who are more likely to have convictions.

Photo courtesy of Andrew Bowe at Flickr.com