Are Ban-the-Box Laws Fair and Effective?

Long-standing labor law requires that screening criteria for hiring be related to the job and consistent with business necessity. A hiring manager will commonly ask whether the interviewee has a criminal background, such as a record of arrest or criminal conviction. However, whether a person's criminal history is a valid reason to exclude them from employment is often subjective, and in many cases, it is arguably unjustified. Supposing one's criminal history is not a valid basis for being hired, then the widespread adoption of criminal background screens may have needlessly harmed the employment opportunities of those with criminal backgrounds, which is a substantial share of the adult population. On average, people with criminal backgrounds already have limited employment opportunities because they have relatively low levels of education and work experience (sometimes due to incarceration). Ban-the-box (BTB) laws are intended to reduce unjustified hiring practices committed against people with criminal backgrounds and improve their employment opportunities. Our research examines the effectiveness of these laws and finds that they have had no discernible impact on employment for young men without college degrees. BTB laws have differing requirements. Most mandate the removal of questions about arrests and/ or convictions from job applications but do not prohibit the use of this information in making a hiring decision after reviewing a background check. Many BTB laws allow consideration of arrests and convictions only after an initial screening, such as when choosing among finalists. Some have broader requirements, such as a mandate to incorporate best practices for hiring suggested by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. BTB laws do not apply to jobs with required background checks, including public school and public safety employees.