Megan Kurlychek, Shawn Bushway and Megan Denver
Employers using criminal background checks to make hiring determinations must carefully balance the need to protect themselves and their clients against legal mandates designed to…
Abstract
Purpose
Employers using criminal background checks to make hiring determinations must carefully balance the need to protect themselves and their clients against legal mandates designed to protect the rights of individuals with criminal records. Yet, surprisingly little research examines this balancing act. The purpose of this paper is to examine how one large agency, the New York Department of Health (DOH), navigates a myriad of mandates to convey and create legitimacy in compliance with complex legal mandates and contrasting interests.
Design/methodology/approach
Prior research on civil right legislation suggests that while companies may create regulations that appear to comply with such mandates, their actual practice does not always comply with their own rules (Dobbin et al., 1988). Therefore, this study addresses two key questions: do the DOH policies appear to comply with the relevant New York State law and does the DOH effectively implement the policies in a way that upholds New York State law. Specifically, this study estimates probit models on a sample of over 7,000 potential employees with criminal records to determine compliance with the criteria established by law and policy.
Findings
Findings show that the variables indicated by law/regulations such as offense severity and time since conviction work in the intended direction. Using only these criteria the models are able to correctly predict clearance decisions approximately of the time and that extra-legal factors such as race and gender do not further influence final determinations.
Practical implications
These findings have practical implications for employers as they show that it is possible for employers to design formal rules that navigate this complex landscape while still opening up employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records.
Originality/value
This is important as many employers either utilize criminal background checks without regulation or are fearful of embarking on efforts to meet regulations such as those promulgated by the EEOC. This research is the first of its kind to actually document and explore the ability of a large employer to conduct socially responsible criminal history background checks.
Details
Keywords
Heather Schoenfeld, Rachel M. Durso and Kat Albrecht
Criminal law has dramatically expanded since the 1970s. Despite popular and academic attention to overcriminalization in the United States, empirical research on how court actors…
Abstract
Criminal law has dramatically expanded since the 1970s. Despite popular and academic attention to overcriminalization in the United States, empirical research on how court actors and, in particular, prosecutors, use the legal tools associated with overcriminalization is scarce. In this chapter, we describe three forms of overcriminalization that, in theory, have created new tools for prosecutors: the criminalization of new behaviors, mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, and the internal expansion of criminal laws. We then use a unique dataset of felony filings and dispositions in Florida from 1995 to 2015 to test a series of hypotheses examining how overcriminalization influences prosecutorial practices given three changes to the political economy during this time: the decline in violent and property crime, the Great Recession, and a growing call for criminal justice reform. We find that prosecutors have been unconstrained by declining crime rates. Yet, rather than rely on new criminal statutes or mandatory minimum sentence laws, they maintained their caseloads by increasing their filing rates for traditional violent, property and drug offenses. At the same time, the data demonstrate nonviolent other offenses are the top charge in almost 20% of the felony caseload between 2005 and 2015. Our findings also suggest that, despite reform rhetoric, filing and conviction rates decreased due to the Recession, not changes in the law. We discuss the implications of these findings for criminal justice reform.
Details
Keywords
Collateral consequences (CCs) of criminal convictions such as disenfranchisement, occupational restrictions, exclusions from public housing, and loss of welfare benefits represent…
Abstract
Collateral consequences (CCs) of criminal convictions such as disenfranchisement, occupational restrictions, exclusions from public housing, and loss of welfare benefits represent one of the salient yet hidden features of the contemporary American penal state. This chapter explores, from a comparative and historical perspective, the rise of the many indirect “regulatory” sanctions flowing from a conviction and discusses some of the unique challenges they pose for legal and policy reform. US jurisprudence and policies are contrasted with the more stringent approach adopted by European legal systems and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in safeguarding the often blurred line between criminal punishments and formally civil sanctions. The aim of this chapter is twofold: (1) to contribute to a better understanding of the overreliance of the US criminal justice systems on CCs as a device of social exclusion and control, and (2) to put forward constructive and viable reform proposals aimed at reinventing the role and operation of collateral restrictions flowing from criminal convictions.