After decades of “tough on crime” policies, the number of ex-offenders in the USA has increased dramatically. Felony convictions limit ex-offenders’ opportunities in the labor market. In an effort to reduce these barriers, many US jurisdictions have implemented closed records policies such as “ban the box.” By limiting employers’ access to applicants’ criminal history records, these policies attempt to eliminate the discrimination that qualified ex-offenders face in the labor market because of the stigma attached to a criminal conviction. These policies have been under scrutiny because of the possible ramifications limiting employers’ access to labor market information might cause. Drawing upon Merton’s theory of “unintended consequences of purposive social action” (1936), this paper investigates the motivations behind the decision to implement and enforce closed records’ policies and the existing body of knowledge on ex-offender barriers to employment available to social agents and analyzes the potential ramifications.
BlumsteinANakamuraK (2009) Redemption in the absence of widespread criminal background checks. Criminology and Public Policy47(2): 327–359.
3.
Bonilla-SilvaEGoarCEmbrickDG (2006) When whites flock together: The social psychology of white habitus. Critical Sociology32(2–3): 229–248.
4.
BushwaySD (2000) The stigma of a criminal history record in the labor market. In: MayJPPittsKR (eds) Building Violence: How America’s Rush to Incarcerate Creates More Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 142–148.
5.
BushwaySD (2004) Labor market effects of permitting employer access to criminal history records. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice20: 276–291.
6.
BushwaySDApelR (2012) A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming. Criminology and Public Policy11(1): 21–50.
7.
BushwaySDReuterP (1997) Labor markets and crime risk factors. In: ShermanLWGottfredsonDMacKenzieD. (eds) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
8.
BushwaySDSweetenG (2007) Abolish lifetime bans for ex-felons. Criminology and Public Policy6(4): 697–706.
9.
BushwaySDBriggsSTaxmanF. (2007) History records: Do you get what you pay for? In: BushwaySDStollMAWeimanDF (eds) Barriers to Reentry? The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post-Industrial America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 174–202.
10.
ClearTR (2007) Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
CohenS (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Construction of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
12.
ConnerleyMLArveyRDBernardyCJ (2001) Criminal background checks for perspective and current employees: Current practices among municipal agencies. Public Personnel Management30(2): 173–183.
13.
DeLisiM (2003) The imprisoned nonviolent drug offender: Specialized martyr or versatile career criminal?American Journal of Criminal Justice27(2): 167–182.
14.
EwaldAUggenC (2012) The collateral effects of imprisonment on prisoners, their families, and communities. In: PetersiliaJReitzK (eds) The Oxford Handbook on Sentencing and Corrections. New York: Oxford University Press, 83–103.
15.
FaheyJRobertsCEngelL (2006) Employment of Ex-Offenders: Employer Perspectives. Crime and Justice Institute. Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety. Available (accessed 4 May 2015) at: http://208.109.185.81/files/ex_offenders_employers_12–15–06.pdf
FreemanR (1991) Crime and the Employment of Disadvantaged Youth. NBER Working Papers Series, Working Paper 3875. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
18.
FreemanR (1995) The labor market. In: WilsonJQPetersiliaJ (eds) Crime: Twenty-Eight Leading Experts Look at the Most Pressing Problem of Our Time. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 171–191.
19.
FreemanR (2008) Incarceration, criminal background checks, and employment in a low(er) crime society. Criminology and Public Policy7(3): 405–412.
20.
GiddensA (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
21.
GuessT (2006) The social construction of whiteness: Racism by intent, racism by consequence. Critical Sociology32(4): 649–73.
22.
HarrisPMKellerKS (2005) Ex-offenders need not apply: The criminal background check in hiring decisions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice21(1): 6–30.
23.
HarrisonBSchehrRC (2004) Offenders and post-release jobs: Variables influencing success and failure. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation39(3): 35–68.
24.
HenryJS (2008) Criminal history on a ‘need to know’ basis: Employment policies that eliminate the criminal history box on employment applications. Justice Policy Journal5(2): 1–22.
25.
HenryJSJacobsJ (2007) Ban the box to promote ex-offender employment. Criminology and Public Policy6(4): 755–762.
26.
HierSP (2002) Conceptualizing moral panic through a moral economy of harm. Critical Sociology28(3): 311–334.
27.
HolzerHJ (1996) What Employers Want: Job Prospects for Less-Educated Workers. New York: SAGE.
28.
HolzerHJRaphaelSStollMA (2002) Can employers play a more positive role in prisoner reentry? Reentry Roundtable, Prisoner Reentry and the Institutions of Civil Society: Bridges and Barriers to Successful Reintegration. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
29.
HolzerHJRaphaelSStollMA (2003) Employment barriers facing ex-offenders. Urban Institute Reentry Roundtable, Employment Dimensions of Reentry: Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and Work. New York University Law School, 19–20 May 2003.
30.
HolzerHJRaphaelSStollMA (2004) How willing are employers to hire ex-offenders?Focus23(2): 41–43.
31.
HolzerHJRaphaelSStollMA (2006) Perceived criminality, criminal background checks, and the racial hiring practices of employers. Journal of Law and Economics49(2): 451–480.
32.
JensenWGiegoldWC (2002) Finding jobs for ex-offenders: A study of employers’ attitudes. American Business Law Journal14: 196–225.
33.
KeynesJM (1921) A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan and Co.
KurlychekMCBrameRBushwaySD (2006) Scarlet letters and recidivism: Does an old criminal record predict future offending?Criminology and Public Policy5(3): 483–504.
36.
LamHHarcourtM (2003) The use of criminal record in employment decisions: The rights of ex-offenders, employers and the public. Journal of Business Ethics47: 237–252.
37.
LanganPALevinDJ (2002) Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 193429. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
38.
LeBelTPBurnettRMarunaS. (2008) The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology5: 131–159.
39.
LoveMC (2006) The debt that can never be paid: Report card on the collateral consequences of conviction. Criminal Justice21: 16.
40.
MertonRK (1936) The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review1(6): 894–904.
41.
MooreWETuminMM (1949) Some social functions of ignorance. American Sociological Review14(6): 787–795.
42.
National Employment Law Project (2011) State Reforms Promoting Employment of People with Criminal Records: 2010–11 Legislative Round-Up. Legislative Update. New York: National Employment Law Project.
43.
National Employment Law Project (2012) States Adopt Fair Hiring Standards: Reducing Barriers to Employment of People with Criminal Records. Briefing Paper. New York: National Employment Law Project.
44.
National Employment Law Project (2014) Statewide Ban the Box: Reducing Unfair Barriers to Employment of People with Criminal Record. Briefing Paper. New York: National Employment Law Project.
45.
PagerD (2003) The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology108: 937–975.
46.
PagerD (2007) Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
PagerDWesternBSugieN (2009) Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: A field experiment. American Sociological Review74: 777–799.
48.
Pew Center on the States (2011) State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons. Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States.
49.
PinardM (2010) Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: Confronting issues of race and dignity. New York University Law Review85: 457–533.
50.
SabolWJWestHCCooperM (2009) Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: Prisoners in 2008. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
51.
SampsonRJWilsonWJ (1995) Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In: HaganJPetersonRD (eds) Crime and Inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 37–56.
52.
SchmittJWarnerC (2010) Ex-Offenders and the Labor Market. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research.
53.
ShackleGLS (1974) Decision: The human predicament. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science412(1): 1–10.
Solinas-SaundersMStacerMJGuyR (2014) Ex-offender barriers to employment: Racial disparities in labor markets with asymmetric information. Journal of Crime and Justice. Epub ahead of print 2 January 2014. DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2013.870492.
56.
SolomonAL (2012) In search of a job: Criminal records as barriers to employment. NIJ Journal270: 42–51.
57.
SolomonALJohnsonKDTravisJ. (2004) From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry – A Report of the Reentry Roundtable. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
58.
State of New Jersey (2012) Assembly, No. 2300: 215th Legislature. Sponsored by Bonnie Watson Coleman (Assemblywoman) District 15 (Hunterdon and Mercer).
59.
StollMABushwayS (2008) The effect of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminology and Public Policy7(3): 371–404.
60.
StrahilevitzLJ (2008) Privacy versus antidiscrimination. University of Chicago Law Review75(1): 363–381.
61.
SwansonSJLangfitt-ReeseSBondGR (2012) Employer attitudes about criminal justice history. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal35: 385–390.
62.
TravisJ (2002) Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In: MauerMChesney-LindM (eds) Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. New York: The New Press, 15–36.
63.
TravisJPetersiliaJ (2001) Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime and Delinquency47(3): 291–313.
64.
UggenCStaffJ (2001) Work as a turning point for criminal offenders. Corrections Management Quarterly5(4): 1–6.
65.
UggenCManzaJThompsonM (2006) Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science605(1): 281–310.
66.
VisherCADebusSYahnerJ (2008) Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releases in Three States. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
67.
VisherCAWinterfieldLCoggeshallMB (2005) Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology1(3): 295–315.
68.
WakefieldSUggenC (2010) Incarceration and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology36: 387–406.
69.
WesternBKlingJRWeimanDF (2001) The labor market consequences of incarceration. Crime & Delinquency47(3): 410–427.
70.
WheelockDUggenCHlavkaH (2011) Employment restrictions for individuals with felon status and racial inequality in the labor market. In: EkunweIOJonesRS (eds) Global Perspectives on Reentry. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press, 278–307.
71.
WinslowRWZhangSX (2006) Criminology: A Global Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
