Ban the Box

Last updated

Ban the Box is an American campaign by advocates for ex-offenders aimed at removing the check box that asks if applicants have a criminal record from hiring applications. Its purpose is to enable ex-offenders to display their qualifications in the hiring process before being asked about their criminal records. The premise of the campaign is that anything that makes it harder for ex-offenders to find a job makes it likelier that they will reoffend, which is bad for society.

Contents

History

The campaign began in Hawaii in the late 1990s and has gained strength in other U.S. states following the 2007–2009 recession. Its advocates say it is necessary because a growing number of Americans have criminal records because of tougher sentencing laws, particularly for drug crimes, [1] and are having difficulty finding work because of high unemployment and a rise in background checks that followed the September 11 terror attacks on the United States. [2]

As of 2016, 25 states, including the District of Columbia, and 150 cities have in place legislation that "bans the box" for government job applications and also in some cases those of their private contractors. [3] Many such ordinances exempt applications for "sensitive" positions, such as those involving work with children. [1] Target Corporation "banned the box" in October 2013. [4]

In the United Kingdom, corporate social responsibility advocacy charity Business in the Community launched a "ban the box" campaign in October 2013. [5]

The campaign has been criticized by U.S. industry group the National Retail Federation for exposing companies, their customers and employees to potential crime, [1] and by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, which says it could expose employers to lawsuits from unsuccessful applicants. [2] Ban the box can put businesses in a difficult position where they can face a lawsuit for not hiring a former prisoner, but also might face a negligent hiring lawsuit if they hire an ex-prisoner who goes on to reoffend at the job. [6] In addition, some businesses, especially smaller ones, feel that ban the box forces them to waste time and money interviewing candidates they will not hire. If a company ends up not hiring a person after doing a background check late in the process, they may have already lost qualified applicants without criminal records, who have lost interest in the job or have found another job. Some people have even argued that ban the box laws cause former criminals to waste their own time interviewing for jobs they will never get, rather than applying for jobs that are more likely to hire ex-cons. [7] [8]

In June 2016, a large experimental study was published by Amanda Agan and Sonja Starr on the racial gap in callback rates of employers to job applicants of different racial backgrounds in New Jersey and New York City before and after Ban the Box laws went into effect. Agan and Starr sent out 15,000 fictitious online job applications to companies in those areas with racially stereotypical names on the job applications. Prior to the implementation of Ban the Box laws in New Jersey and New York City, the gap in the callback rate between the job applications with stereotypically black names and stereotypically white names was 7 percent. After the implementation of Ban the Box laws, the racial gap in the callback rate increased to 45 percent. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] A July 2016 study by Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen found that in jurisdictions where Ban the Box laws have been implemented, the probabilities of young, non-college educated, black and Hispanic males being employed have declined. [14] [12] [15] [16] [17] An October 2006 study with a similar finding published by Harry J. Holzer, Steven Raphael, Michael A. Stoll found that employers who made routine criminal background checks for all job applicants, regardless of their racial backgrounds, hired black applicants (especially black males) at a higher rate than those employers that did not make routine criminal background checks for all applicants. [18] [19]

A 2017 study reported by The Quarterly Journal of Economics (the following year) found that before the Ban The Box (BTB) was implemented, whites received 7% more employer callbacks than blacks. After the BTB was implemented, the gap rose to 43%, concluding that blacks were negatively affected by the BTB. [20] A 2019 study in Economic Inquiry found that BTB raised "the probability of public employment for those with convictions by about 30% on average" without any adverse effects for young low-skilled minority males. [21]

In a study done by Ginevra Marta Scherini [22] in 2018 looked at the relationship between those who apply to jobs with disabilities and compared it with applicants who apply with a criminal history believing that the stigma that surrounds these two disclosures made them comparable psychologically. Scherini found that applicants who self-identify with their criminal history, much like their disabled counterparts, were more likely to disclose their criminal history with employers. This study was conducted to gauge the effects of Ban-the-Box measures on self disclosure.

A study done by Jennifer Dolac and Benjamin Hansen [23] in 2020 found that over time Ban the Box policies reduces the likelihood of employment by approximately 5.1%. They compared levels of unemployment across measures such as time, location, demographic, age, skill-level, and education level to gauge the effects of Ban the Box policies on Hispanic and black men.

Fair Chance

Senator Cory Booker testifying in front of a House Oversight subcommittee in support of a federal Fair Chance Act in 2019. Cory Booker testifying for the Fair Chance Act.jpg
Senator Cory Booker testifying in front of a House Oversight subcommittee in support of a federal Fair Chance Act in 2019.

The terms Ban the Box and Fair Chance Act are often used interchangeably. [24]

In 2014, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed the Fair Chance Ordinance, authored by Supervisors Jane Kim and Malia Cohen. [25] On October 27, 2015, New York City enacted the Fair Chance Law. [26] In 2016, Austin became the first city in the south to ban the box, led by Greg Casar. [27]

In March 2018, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed the Washington Fair Chance Act into law. [28] In August 2017, Seattle additionally adopted a "Fair Chance Housing Ordinance", which prohibits landlords from considering the criminal history of a renter except for some sex crimes. [29]

Implementation

United States

The "Ban the Box" movement requires employers to eliminate the question on a job application that asks about an applicant's criminal history and attempts to reduce an employers' accessibility to criminal records until later on in the application process. The goal of this initiative is to decrease discrimination against applicants who may have a criminal history. Hawaii was the first state to implement the law in 1998. [30] In 2015, President Obama "banned the box" on applications for federal government jobs. Many private employers, including Wal-Mart, Target, and Koch Industries, decided to initiate the policy before it was required to do so due to public pressure. [31] As of 2018, 11 US states have mandated the removal of conviction history questions from job applications for private employers. [32]

Restrictions that Ban the Box imposes on employers in regards to criminal history: [24]

  1. What employers can ask prospective employees before they are hired
  2. When an employer can inquire about ones criminal history
  3. How far back in ones criminal history an employer can inquire about

There are also differences in legislation from state to state. These differences include: the types of jobs and employers who are covered, what stage of employment an employer can inquire about an applicants criminal history, and to what extent criminal records can be utilized when making decisions on offering employment. [33]

The "Ban the Box" initiative has begun to move into the private sector as well with approximately 15 states [34] outright banning employers from inquiring about past criminal history.

California

The State of California has a statewide Ban the Box law, officially known as the California Fair Chance Act, which assists Californians with conviction histories to re-enter society by prohibiting employers from asking about conviction history before making a job offer. The California Ban the Box Law applies to public and private employers with five or more employees. [35]   Under the California Ban the Box Law, an employer may conduct a criminal history check only after making the applicant a conditional job offer.  If the applicant has a conviction history, the employer must perform an individualized assessment regarding the conviction history. [35] The individualized assessment requires the employer to weigh the applicant's conviction history against the position and ascertain the viability of extending employment.  The employer may not deny employment unless the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the position's duties that justify a denial.  In performing the individualized assessment, the employer must consider the following factors:

If, after completing the individualized assessment, the employer wishes to deny employment,  the Ban the Box Law prescribes a procedure for providing the applicant with notice. [35]   First, the employer must make a written preliminary decision and notify the applicant of the disqualifying conviction. [35]  The applicant has an opportunity to respond. [35] The employer must consider any new information offered by the applicant before making a final decision.

San Francisco

In 2005, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution initiated by "All of Us or None" calling for San Francisco to eliminate hiring discrimination against people with criminal records by removing the criminal history requests on applications for public employment. [36]  The resolution impacted municipal hiring policy.  In 2014, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted San Francisco's Ban the Box law, officially known as the San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance, which expanded the city's Ban the Box policy to cover both private and public employers.

San Francisco's Ban the Box law largely mirrors California's Ban the Box law. Notably, San Francisco's Ban the Box law includes unique penalties for employer violations, including liquidated damages of $500 for each day an applicant or employee's San Francisco Ban the Box law rights were violated. [36] Claims under San Francisco's Ban the Box law must be filed within one year of the date of last violation. [36]

Oakland

In 2020, Oakland, California, passed a Ban the Box law in housing, titled the Oakland Fair Chance Housing Ordinance. [37] Effective January 2020, the Ordinance prohibits most Oakland landlords from inquiring into an applicant's conviction history or conducting a criminal background check. Landlords that violate the Ordinance face potential exposure to severe damages in a civil lawsuit.

Impact

A 2020 study by economists Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen found that Ban the Box increased employer discrimination against young, low-skilled black men. The authors argue that when employers are unable to check job applicants' criminal records early in the hiring process, they instead resort to statistical discrimination against groups that include more ex-offenders. [38]

A 2020 study by economist Evan K. Rose found that Ban the Box had negligible effects on ex-offenders' labor market outcomes. [39]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal record</span> Record of a persons criminal history

A criminal record is a record of a person's criminal convictions history. The information included in a criminal record and the existence of a criminal record varies between countries and even between jurisdictions within a country. In most cases it lists all non-expunged criminal offences and may also include traffic offences such as speeding and drunk driving. In most countries a criminal record is limited to unexpunged and unexpired actual convictions, while in some it can also include arrests, charges dismissed, charges pending and charges of which the individual has been acquitted. The term rap sheet refers to Record of Arrest and Prosecution, similar to a criminal record.

A background check is a process a person or company uses to verify that an individual is who they claim to be, and this provides an opportunity to check and confirm the validity of someone's criminal record, education, employment history, and other activities from their past. The frequency, purpose, and legitimacy of background checks vary among countries, industries, and individuals. An employment background check typically takes place when someone applies for a job, but it can also happen at any time the employer deems necessary. A variety of methods are used to complete these checks including comprehensive database search and personal references.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job interview</span> Type of interview

A job interview is an interview consisting of a conversation between a job applicant and a representative of an employer which is conducted to assess whether the applicant should be hired. Interviews are one of the most common methods of employee selection. Interviews vary in the extent to which the questions are structured, from an unstructured and informal conversation to a structured interview in which an applicant is asked a predetermined list of questions in a specified order; structured interviews are usually more accurate predictors of which applicants will make suitable employees, according to research studies.

Pregnancy discrimination is a type of employment discrimination that occurs when expectant women are fired, not hired, or otherwise discriminated against due to their pregnancy or intention to become pregnant. Common forms of pregnancy discrimination include not being hired due to visible pregnancy or likelihood of becoming pregnant, being fired after informing an employer of one's pregnancy, being fired after maternity leave, and receiving a pay dock due to pregnancy. Pregnancy discrimination may also take the form of denying reasonable accommodations to workers based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Pregnancy discrimination has also been examined to have an indirect relationship with the decline of a mother's physical and mental health. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women prohibits dismissal on the grounds of maternity or pregnancy and ensures right to maternity leave or comparable social benefits. The Maternity Protection Convention C 183 proclaims adequate protection for pregnancy as well. Though women have some protection in the United States because of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it has not completely curbed the incidence of pregnancy discrimination. The Equal Rights Amendment could ensure more robust sex equality ensuring that women and men could both work and have children at the same time.

Negligence in employment encompasses several causes of action in tort law that arise where an employer is held liable for the tortious acts of an employee because that employer was negligent in providing the employee with the ability to engage in a particular act. Four basic causes of action may arise from such a scenario: negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision and negligent training. While negligence in employment may overlap with negligent entrustment and vicarious liability, the concepts are distinct grounds of liability. The doctrine that an employer is liable for torts committed by employees within the scope of their employment is called respondeat superior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disclosure and Barring Service</span> UK Government body for background checks

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is a non-departmental public body of the Home Office of the United Kingdom. The DBS enables organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable for certain work, especially involving children or vulnerable adults, and provides wider access to criminal record information through its disclosure service for England and Wales.

Employment discrimination is a form of illegal discrimination in the workplace based on legally protected characteristics. In the U.S., federal anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination by employers against employees based on age, race, gender, sex, religion, national origin, and physical or mental disability. State and local laws often protect additional characteristics such as marital status, veteran status and caregiver/familial status. Earnings differentials or occupational differentiation—where differences in pay come from differences in qualifications or responsibilities—should not be confused with employment discrimination. Discrimination can be intended and involve disparate treatment of a group or be unintended, yet create disparate impact for a group.

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws consider race, color, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 of the UK Parliament enables some criminal convictions to be ignored after a rehabilitation period. Its purpose is that people do not have a lifelong blot on their records because of a relatively minor offence in their past. The rehabilitation period is automatically determined by the sentence. After this period, if there has been no further conviction the conviction is "spent" and, with certain exceptions, need not be disclosed by the ex-offender in any context such as when applying for a job, obtaining insurance, or in civil proceedings. A conviction for the purposes of the ROA includes a conviction issued outside Great Britain and therefore foreign convictions are eligible to receive the protection of the ROA.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories". The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

The Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 or STRIVE Act of 2007 is proposed United States legislation designed to address the problem of illegal immigration, introduced into the United States House of Representatives. Its supporters claim it would toughen border security, increase enforcement of and criminal penalties for illegal immigration, and establish an employment verification system to identify illegal aliens working in the United States. It would also establish new programs for both illegal aliens and new immigrant workers to achieve legal citizenship. Critics allege that the bill would turn law enforcement agencies into social welfare agencies as it would not allow CBP to detain illegal immigrants that are eligible for Z-visas and would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens with very few restrictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Application for employment</span> Standard business document

An application for employment is a standard business document that is prepared with questions deemed relevant by employers. It is used to determine the best candidate to fill a specific role within the company. Most companies provide such forms to anyone upon request, at which point it becomes the responsibility of the applicant to complete the form and return it to the employer for consideration. The completed and returned document notifies the company of the applicant's availability and desire to be employed as well as their qualifications and background so that a determination can be made as to the candidate's suitability to the position.

Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States has been illegal since enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers retain the right to lawfully consider an applicant's or employee's criminal conviction(s) for employment purposes e.g., hiring, retention, promotion, benefits, and delegated duties.

Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records varies from country to country. Many countries prohibit the official disclosure of certain convictions that happened long ago and allow ex-offenders to legally conceal their criminal past.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Malia Cohen</span> American politician (born 1977)

Malia M. Cohen is an American politician serving as the 33rd Controller of California since 2023. A member of the Democratic Party, Cohen previously served as Chair of the California State Board of Equalization from the 2nd district from 2019 to 2023 and as President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from District 10 from 2011 to 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Indiana enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBT people. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Indiana since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Baskin v. Bogan.

Devah Iwalani Pager was an American sociologist best known for her research on racial discrimination in employment and the American criminal justice system. At the time of her death, she was Professor of Sociology and Public Policy at Harvard University. She was a class of 2011 William T. Grant Scholar.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice reform in the United States</span> Reforms seeking to address structural issues in criminal justice systems of the United States

Criminal justice reform seeks to address structural issues in criminal justice systems such as racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and recidivism. Reforms can take place at any point where the criminal justice system intervenes in citizens’ lives, including lawmaking, policing, sentencing and incarceration. Criminal justice reform can also address the collateral consequences of conviction, including disenfranchisement or lack of access to housing or employment, that may restrict the rights of individuals with criminal records.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jennifer Doleac</span> American economist

Jennifer Doleac is an American economist and is the vice president of criminal justice at Arnold Ventures. She was previously an associate professor at Texas A&M, where she directed the Justice Tech Lab, was a research affiliate of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and is on the board of editors of the Journal of Economic Literature. She also hosts the Probable Causation podcast. In October 2022, Vox named her to their "Future Perfect 50," a list of "scientists, thinkers, scholars, writers, and activists building a more perfect future," writing, "Doleac looks at criminal justice policy through the lens of causal factors on a society-wide level."

Benjamin Hansen is an American economist and the W. E. Miner Professor of Economics at University of Oregon. He is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a research fellow at IZA, and a Research Affiliate at the University of Chicago Crime Lab. He has contributed to the scientific study of cannabis and alcohol policy, as well as crime and labor economics.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Harless, William (3 August 2013). "'Ban the Box' Laws Make Criminal Pasts Off-Limits". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
  2. 1 2 Marois, Michael B. (11 October 2013). "California Gives Break to Growing Workforce With Criminal Past". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
  3. ↑ "Even the smallest record can be a life sentence of poverty". Deseret News. Retrieved 3 January 2017.
  4. ↑ Staples, Brent (29 October 2013). "Target Bans the Box". New York Times. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
  5. ↑ Howard, Stephen (17 October 2013). "'Ban the Box' campaign asks employers to give ex-offenders a chance". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
  6. ↑ Fields, John R. Emshwiller and Gary (December 13, 2014). "Decadeslong Arrest Wave Vexes Employers" – via www.wsj.com.
  7. ↑ Gorce, Tammy La (November 22, 2017). "As 'Ban the Box' Spreads, Private Employers Still Have Questions". The New York Times .
  8. ↑ Jennifer L. Doleac (December 13, 2017). "Empirical evidence on the effects of Ban the Box policies : Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform" (PDF). Retrieved March 16, 2022.
  9. ↑ Agan, Amanda Y.; Starr, Sonja B. (June 14, 2016). "Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination: A Field Experiment". University of Michigan Law & Economics Working Papers. 16–012. SSRN   2795795.
  10. ↑ Vedantam, Shankar (July 19, 2016). "'Ban The Box' Laws,' Do They Help Job Applicants With Criminal Histories?" (Interview). Interviewed by Steve Inskeep. NPR . Retrieved August 8, 2016.
  11. ↑ "'Ban the Box' leads to increase in employer racial discrimination". Michigan News. University of Michigan. June 15, 2016. Retrieved August 8, 2016.
  12. 1 2 Semuels, Alana (August 4, 2016). "The Unforeseen Consequences of Banning the Box". The Atlantic . Atlantic Media . Retrieved August 10, 2016.
  13. ↑ Massey, Wyatt (July 30, 2016). "Ban the Box increases racial discrimination, study says". The Baltimore Sun . tronc . Retrieved August 10, 2016.
  14. ↑ Doleac, Jennifer L.; Hansen, Benjamin (July 2016). Does "Ban the Box" Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers? Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories are Hidden (Report). NBER Working Papers. Vol. 22469. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.3386/w22469 .
  15. ↑ "How 'ban the box' backfires for minority job-seekers". Phys.org . August 8, 2016. Retrieved August 10, 2016.
  16. ↑ "UVA Researchers: Ban the Box Policy Leading to More Discrimination". WVIR-TV . Retrieved August 10, 2016.
  17. ↑ Cappelli, Peter (August 8, 2016). "Is 'Ban the Box' a Pandora's Box?". Human Resource Executive Online. Retrieved August 10, 2016.
  18. ↑ Holzer, Harry J.; Raphael, Steven; Stoll, Michael A. (October 2006). "Perceived Criminality, Criminal Background Checks, and the Racial Hiring Practices of Employers". The Journal of Law and Economics . 49 (2): 451–480. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.382.6355 . doi:10.1086/501089. S2CID   10965363.
  19. ↑ Sowell, Thomas (2011), Economic Facts and Fallacies (2nd ed.), New York: Basic Books, p. 191, A study of those employers who routinely check for prison records among all people who apply for employment found that these particular employers hired black males more often than other employers did.
  20. ↑ Agan, Amanda; Starr, Sonja (1 February 2018). "Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Racial Discrimination: A Field Experiment". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. pp. 191–235. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
  21. ↑ Craigie, Terry-Ann (2017-01-27). "Ban the Box, Convictions, and Public Employment". Rochester, NY. SSRN   2906893.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  22. ↑ Scherini, Ginevra Marta (2018). Ban the Box (Thesis). San Jose State University Library. doi: 10.31979/etd.8ub5-w98y .
  23. ↑ Doleac, Jennifer L.; Hansen, Benjamin (2020-04-01). "The Unintended Consequences of "Ban the Box": Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories Are Hidden". Journal of Labor Economics. 38 (2): 321–374. doi: 10.1086/705880 . ISSN   0734-306X. S2CID   222323597.
  24. 1 2 Von Bergen, C.W (Summer 2016). "Ban the Box: Protecting Employer Rights While Improving Opportunities for Ex-offender Job Seekers". Employee Relations Law Journal. 42: 26–50.
  25. ↑ Lagos, Marisa (February 4, 2014). "San Francisco supervisors pass "ban the box" law". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 23 June 2017.
  26. ↑ "Fair Chance NYC". Fair Chance NYC. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  27. ↑ Kamp, Amy (March 25, 2016). "Austin First Fair Chance City in the South". austinchronicle.com. Austin Chronicle. Retrieved May 22, 2019.
  28. ↑ Ordway, Denise-Marie (19 March 2018). "Ban the Box laws: When employers can't ask about criminal history". Shorenstein Center. Journalist’s Resource. Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
  29. ↑ Note, Recent Ordinance: Seattle Bans the Use of Criminal History in Rental Decisions , 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1844 (2018).
  30. ↑ Flexon, Jamie L.; Stolzenberg, Lisa; D’Alessio, Stewart J. (2015-06-01). "The Effect of Hawaii's Ban The Box Law on Repeat Offending". American Journal of Criminal Justice. 40 (2): 336–352. doi:10.1007/s12103-014-9251-9. ISSN   1936-1351. S2CID   144451855.
  31. ↑ Doleac, Jennifer L; Hansen, Benjamin (2016). "Does "Ban the Box" Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers? Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories are Hidden". The National Bureau of Economic Research.
  32. ↑ Avery, Beth; Hernandez, Phil (8 February 2018). "Ban the Box: U.S. Cities, Counties, and States Adopt Fair Hiring Policies". NELP: National Employment Law Project. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
  33. ↑ Kucharczyk, Nina. "Thinking Outside the Box" (PDF). fordhamlawreview.org.
  34. ↑ "Ban the Box: U.S. Cities, Counties, and States Adopt Fair Hiring Policies". National Employment Law Project. Retrieved 2022-11-17.
  35. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Ban the Box – Ban the Box". banthebox.net. Retrieved 2020-01-14.
  36. 1 2 3 "San Francisco Ban the Box – Ban the Box". banthebox.net. Retrieved 2020-01-14.
  37. ↑ Astanehe, Michael. "Oakland Fair Chance Housing Ordinance". BantheBox.net. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
  38. ↑ Doleac, Jennifer L.; Hansen, Benjamin (2019-08-16). "The Unintended Consequences of "Ban the Box": Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories Are Hidden". Journal of Labor Economics. 38 (2): 321–374. doi: 10.1086/705880 . ISSN   0734-306X.
  39. ↑ Rose, Evan K. (2020-01-13). "Does Banning the Box Help Ex-Offenders Get Jobs? Evaluating the Effects of a Prominent Example". Journal of Labor Economics. 39: 79–113. doi:10.1086/708063. ISSN   0734-306X. S2CID   212863819.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.