Hubbry Logo
Ban the BoxBan the BoxMain
Open search
Ban the Box
Community hub
Ban the Box
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ban the Box
Ban the Box
Ban the Box
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Ban the Box is an American campaign by advocates for ex-offenders aimed at removing the check box that asking applicants about their potential 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 Ban the Box campaign started in the state of Hawaii in the late 1990s and gained popularity during the Great Recession. Proponents of the campaign argue removing the need to mention criminal records in job applications may lower recidivism rates.

History

[edit]

The campaign began in Hawaii in the late 1990s and has gained strength in other U.S. states following the Great 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] Proponents of Ban the Box argue unemployment leads to high crime rates, and prohibiting employers from asking for ex-convicts' criminal records help lower the chances of repeat offending.[3][5]

In the United Kingdom, corporate social responsibility advocacy charity Business in the Community launched a "ban the box" campaign in October 2013.[6]

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 or respondeat superior lawsuit if the business hires an ex-prisoner who goes on to reoffend at the job.[7] 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. [8][9]

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.[10][11][12][13][14] 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.[15][13][16][17][18] 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.[19][20]

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.[21] 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.[22]

In a study done by Ginevra Marta Scherini[23] 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[24] 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

[edit]
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.[25]

In 2014, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed the Fair Chance Ordinance, authored by Supervisors Jane Kim and Malia Cohen.[26] On October 27, 2015, New York City enacted the Fair Chance Law.[27] In 2016, Austin became the first city in the south to ban the box, led by Greg Casar.[28]

In March 2018, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed the Washington Fair Chance Act into law.[29] 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.[30]

Implementation

[edit]

United States

[edit]

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.[31] 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.[32] As of 2018, 11 US states have mandated the removal of conviction history questions from job applications for private employers.[33]

Restrictions that Ban the Box imposes on employers in regards to criminal history:[25]

  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.[34]

The "Ban the Box" initiative has begun to move into the private sector as well with approximately 15 states[35] outright banning employers from inquiring about past criminal history.

California

[edit]

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.[36]  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.[36] 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:

  • The nature and gravity of the offense;
  • The time passed since the offense or sentence completion; and,
  • The nature of the job held or sought.[36]

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.[36]  First, the employer must make a written preliminary decision and notify the applicant of the disqualifying conviction.[36]  The applicant has an opportunity to respond.[36] The employer must consider any new information offered by the applicant before making a final decision.

San Francisco

[edit]

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.[37]  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.[37] Claims under San Francisco's Ban the Box law must be filed within one year of the date of last violation.[37]

Oakland

[edit]

In 2020, Oakland, California, passed a Ban the Box law in housing, titled the Oakland Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.[38] 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

[edit]

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.[39]

A 2020 study by economist Evan K. Rose found that Ban the Box had negligible effects on ex-offenders' labor market outcomes.[40]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ban the Box

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Ban the Box refers to a set of American policies and advocacy efforts designed to restrict employers from inquiring about applicants' criminal histories on initial job applications, with the stated objective of enhancing employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated individuals by postponing background checks until after a conditional offer or later hiring stages. Originating in the late 1990s— enacted the first such measure in 1998—the initiative gained traction through civil rights and reentry organizations, leading to widespread adoption by over 35 U.S. states, hundreds of cities and counties, and federal agencies by the mid-2010s, often under the umbrella of "fair chance" hiring laws that mandate individualized assessments of criminal records if disclosed. Proponents argue these reforms reduce automatic disqualification based on past convictions, potentially lowering by facilitating reintegration into the workforce; however, rigorous empirical analyses, including quasi-experimental studies exploiting policy timing variations, reveal limited or null effects on overall employment rates for ex-offenders and significant , such as heightened statistical where employers, lacking direct criminal history signals, infer higher from observable traits like age, race, and ethnicity, thereby reducing callbacks and job offers for young, low-skilled and men by 3-5 percentage points. Field experiments corroborate this, documenting widened racial callback gaps post-implementation, as employers statistically discriminate against demographics correlated with higher offense probabilities, countering the policies' aim of equity and sometimes exacerbating disparities in labor market outcomes. These findings, drawn from peer-reviewed economic research, underscore causal mechanisms rooted in rather than overt bias, prompting debates over whether delayed disclosure truly advances reentry or inadvertently harms the very populations it targets.

Definition and Core Elements

Policy Mechanics

Ban the Box policies prohibit employers from asking applicants about criminal convictions or history on initial job applications, typically through removal of the associated or question. These rules generally apply to employers and, in numerous jurisdictions, to private employers with 10 or more employees, depending on local statutes. Employers may inquire into criminal history and perform background checks only after advancing the applicant to later hiring stages, such as following an initial or issuance of a conditional job offer. For instance, in Minnesota's policy enacted in 2009, public employers must defer such inquiries until an applicant is deemed qualified and selected for an . Many policies further require employers to provide applicants of adverse actions based on records and an opportunity to contest findings. Unlike record or sealing statutes, Ban the Box measures do not alter or eliminate criminal themselves, preserving employers' ability to access and evaluate them post-initial screening while postponing the inquiry to prioritize qualifications assessment. Some implementations incorporate mandates for individualized assessments prior to denial of , considering factors including offense recency, severity relative to job duties, and rehabilitation .

Variations Across Jurisdictions

At the federal level, Ban the Box policies under the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2021 restrict executive branch agencies and federal contractors from inquiring about an applicant's criminal history prior to extending a conditional job offer, with regulations finalized and effective September 1, 2023. This scope is limited to federal and contracting processes, excluding most employers unless they hold federal contracts, and includes exemptions for positions requiring early disclosure due to , duties, or access to sensitive information. State-level implementations diverge substantially, with 37 states adopting policies as of 2023, though applicability ranges from public-sector-only mandates in states like Georgia and Wisconsin to broader requirements encompassing private employers in jurisdictions such as California and New York. California's Fair Chance Act, effective January 1, 2018, applies to private employers with five or more employees, prohibiting criminal history questions before a conditional offer and mandating an individualized assessment for any adverse decisions based on convictions, while exempting roles where federal or state law requires pre-offer checks, such as in healthcare or finance. In contrast, states like Connecticut exempt small businesses with fewer than five employees from private-sector coverage, narrowing the policy's reach. Additional variations include employee thresholds for applicability—often 10 to 15 workers in states like or —and extensions beyond employment to providers or in places like and , where landlords or licensing boards must delay conviction inquiries. Exemptions for high-security or roles, such as , banking, or positions involving minors or the elderly, are prevalent across states, allowing earlier inquiries when tied to legal necessities or business risks. This patchwork creates compliance challenges for multistate employers, as policies lack uniformity in timing, assessment procedures, and sectoral extensions.

Historical Development

Origins in Advocacy (Pre-2010)

The Ban the Box campaign originated in the early to mid-2000s as a and nonprofit-driven effort to reform hiring practices for individuals returning from incarceration, amid surging U.S. populations and reentry challenges. Nonprofits including the National Employment Law Project (NELP) and the Legal Action Center (LAC) spearheaded advocacy, arguing that early criminal history inquiries created automatic barriers unrelated to job qualifications, exacerbating unemployment among ex-offenders. This push coincided with the aftermath of the incarceration boom, during which annual state releases grew from 405,400 in 1990 to 592,000 in 2001, fueling demand for reentry programs to address high —where rates for released prisoners showed little decline between 1999 and 2004 cohorts, with many rearrested within years. Early implementations targeted hiring in major cities, focusing on delaying or removing criminal questions from initial applications. Boston adopted an ordinance in the mid- that eliminated background checks for many city jobs and extended the policy to contractors, marking an initial success in public employment reform. Similarly, implemented ban the box measures around 2007 for municipal positions, part of a wave including and others that prioritized qualifications over upfront disclosures. These local policies served as models, influenced by reentry advocacy responding to the structural barriers faced by the roughly 600,000 annual releases in the . Pre-2010 pilots in locales like and Newark tested broader applications, building on earlier precedents. enacted the nation's first statewide restriction in 1998, barring private employers from inquiring about criminal history before a bona fide job offer, providing an early framework for delaying checks. Newark, under , advanced similar public hiring reforms by the late 2000s, prohibiting inquiries until after a conditional offer and influencing subsequent urban testing grounds. These efforts highlighted the campaign's incremental strategy, grounded in addressing drivers like employment deficits amid static re-arrest patterns from the onward.

Expansion in States and Cities (2010-2019)

Following the initial advocacy efforts of the late , adoption of ban-the-box policies accelerated markedly in the at the state and local levels. By June 2015, 23 states had enacted statewide policies, primarily applying to public , while over 100 cities and counties had implemented similar ordinances, often extending to private employers in some jurisdictions. This proliferation was fueled by growing recognition of barriers for individuals with criminal records, with early movers including , which in May 2013 signed legislation (S.F. 523) prohibiting private employers from inquiring about criminal history on initial applications, effective January 1, 2014. Federal developments under the Obama administration provided additional impetus. In April 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued enforcement guidance emphasizing that blanket exclusions based on criminal records could violate Title VII of the , particularly if disproportionately affecting protected groups, which encouraged states and localities to delay such inquiries. This was complemented by a November 2015 directing federal agencies to ban criminal history questions from initial applications, and subsequent 2016 Office of Personnel Management rules extending similar delays to federal contractors, signaling national momentum that influenced subnational adoptions. Urban centers emerged as key adopters, with enacting its Fair Chance Ordinance in 2013, effective August 2014, which barred employers with 20 or more employees from inquiring about convictions before a conditional offer and required individualized assessments thereafter. Similarly, nearby Oakland passed a comparable ordinance in 2012, effective for private employers by 2013, mandating removal of criminal history checkboxes from applications. California further expanded statewide coverage with Assembly Bill 1008 (the Fair Chance Act) in October 2017, effective January 1, 2018, prohibiting employers with five or more employees from pre-offer criminal inquiries and mandating individualized assessments for any disqualifications based on convictions. By the late , the National Employment Law Project documented 37 states plus the District of Columbia with ban-the-box policies, alongside over 150 cities and counties, reflecting a of laws varying in scope from public-only mandates to broader private-sector requirements with waiting periods or assessment protocols. This wave marked a shift toward standardized fair-chance hiring practices, though enforcement and compliance remained decentralized across jurisdictions.

Federal and Recent Adoptions (2020-Present)

The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019, enacted on December 20, 2019, as Division B of the for Fiscal Year 2020, extended ban-the-box requirements to federal hiring processes. This legislation prohibits federal agencies from inquiring about an applicant's criminal history—including arrests, charges, or convictions—until after the applicant has received a conditional offer of employment, with exceptions for positions involving or . The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued final implementing regulations on September 1, 2023, which became effective on October 2, 2023, building on OPM's prior 2016 ban-the-box policy and applying to federal contractors with civilian or defense contracts exceeding certain thresholds. At the state level, ban-the-box adoptions have been sparse since , with no significant expansion beyond the 37 states that had enacted such policies by 2021. As of 2025, the number of states with statewide ban-the-box laws remains at 37, plus the District of Columbia, reflecting stalled legislative momentum amid ongoing debates over policy effectiveness. Notable local developments include expansions, such as New York City's amendments to its Fair Chance Act on January 10, 2021, which broadened applicability to more employers and strengthened enforcement mechanisms. However, no new statewide mandates have emerged in recent years, contrasting with the more rapid proliferation observed in the 2010s. Voluntary corporate adoption of ban-the-box practices has persisted alongside mandatory laws, though post-2020 initiatives have not markedly increased. While earlier supporters like maintained fair chance hiring commitments from 2015 onward, broader private sector shifts have been limited, with compliance driven primarily by jurisdictional requirements rather than widespread new pledges. As of 2025, no major policy reversals have occurred at federal or state levels, but the absence of fresh adoptions underscores a plateau in expansion efforts.

Proponents' Rationale

Fair Chance Hiring Claims

Proponents of "ban the box" policies maintain that postponing inquiries about criminal history until after an initial assessment of qualifications ensures ex-offenders receive consideration based on merit rather than immediate from their records. This framing emphasizes a "second chance" in the hiring process, where applicants avoid automatic rejection solely for disclosing a record on early applications, thereby mitigating the stigma that often leads employers to discard resumes preemptively. Advocacy organizations, including the National Employment Law Project (NELP), argue that upfront criminal history questions create unnecessary hurdles, preventing candidates from demonstrating relevant skills, experience, and rehabilitation efforts before background checks occur. NELP contends that such policies foster fair chance hiring by shifting focus to job-related competencies initially, which they claim levels the playing field for individuals whose records might otherwise overshadow their potential contributions. These claims also invoke disparate impact liability under Title VII of the , asserting that early-stage record inquiries perpetuate discriminatory barriers, as involvement disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic applicants compared to whites. With estimates indicating 70 to 100 million U.S. adults—roughly one in three—hold some , proponents highlight how these practices exclude a vast segment of the workforce from even preliminary opportunities.

Anticipated Benefits on Employment and Recidivism

Proponents argue that Ban the Box policies foster higher rates among ex-offenders by delaying criminal history inquiries, allowing candidates to demonstrate qualifications first and increasing callback rates in initial screening stages. This is theorized to particularly benefit low-risk individuals with older or minor convictions, who may secure interviews and offers before later-stage background checks reveal records, based on pre-policy estimates from studies showing criminal disclosures reduce employer callbacks by 40-50%. Early pilots in jurisdictions like , in the 2010s were claimed to yield modest employment gains, with hires of applicants with records rising from about 2% to over 15% post-implementation, supporting expectations of broader workforce reintegration for non-violent ex-offenders. Such anticipated employment upticks are projected to curb through established criminological links between stable jobs and desistance from , where serves as a key for reoffending due to economic desperation and lack of routine. Advocates cite longitudinal indicating employed ex-offenders recidivate at rates as low as 16% over three years, compared to 52% for the unemployed, attributing this to employment's role in providing and social ties that deter criminal relapse. Peer-reviewed analyses reinforce this causal pathway, finding that post-release work—especially full-time roles—lowers re-arrest probabilities by 20-30% via reduced and improved life-course stability, a mechanism proponents extend to Ban the Box's hiring effects. Broader societal gains include economic productivity from reintegrated workers contributing taxes and , rather than drawing on welfare or incarceration costs estimated at $30,000-50,000 per annually. By shrinking the idle ex-offender population, policies are expected to alleviate taxpayer burdens from recidivism-driven reincarceration, while enhancing public safety through lower rates tied to stability, as articulated in advocacy emphasizing expanded applicant pools and fiscal returns. These projections hinge on the untested assumption that delayed disclosures translate to sustained hires without employer workarounds, positioning as a primary for long-term desistance.

Implementation Details

United States Federal Level

At the federal level, there is no comprehensive statutory prohibition on inquiring about criminal history in initial job applications for private employers, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued enforcement guidance on April 25, 2012, advising employers to avoid blanket exclusions based on criminal records to prevent discrimination under Title VII of the of 1964. This guidance recommends individualized assessments considering the nature of the offense, time elapsed, and job-relatedness, rather than delaying inquiries outright, and applies to all covered employers including federal contractors. The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019, enacted as part of the for Fiscal Year 2020, imposes a stricter "ban the box" requirement on federal executive branch agencies by prohibiting requests for criminal history record information from applicants prior to extending a conditional offer of . The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finalized implementing regulations on September 1, 2023, effective October 2, 2023, which apply to competitive and positions but exempt roles requiring suitability or security investigations before a conditional offer, such as those involving or duties. Agencies must report to OPM semi-annually on any adverse actions taken based on post-offer criminal history inquiries, including the offenses cited and applicant demographics. For federal contractors, the Fair Chance Act mandates that the (FAR) Council issue rules prohibiting inquiries into applicants' criminal history before a conditional offer, with compliance required for contracts entered into or modified after December 20, 2021. These provisions extend limited ban-the-box protections to private-sector jobs funded by federal contracts but do not broadly regulate non-contractor private employers, leaving most hiring practices governed by state laws or voluntary compliance with EEOC guidance.

State and Local Policies

As of 2021, 37 states had enacted ban-the-box policies restricting when employers may inquire about applicants' criminal histories, with significant variation in applicability and timing. Approximately 14 states extend coverage to both public and private employers, while 22 states limit policies to jobs and government contractors. These differences reflect diverse legislative priorities, with some jurisdictions mandating delays until after an initial interview and others until after a conditional job offer. California's Fair Chance Act, effective January 1, 2018, expanded ban-the-box requirements to private employers with five or more employees, prohibiting conviction history inquiries before a conditional offer and mandating an individualized assessment for any adverse actions based on records. Minnesota's statute, signed in 2013 and effective January 1, 2014, provides broad coverage for private employers by barring criminal history questions on applications or before an initial interview, excluding certain positions in law enforcement or roles requiring specific certifications. In states like Texas, policies remain confined to public employers and select localities, such as Harris County's 2022 adoption for county jobs, without a statewide private-sector mandate as of 2025. Municipal ordinances demonstrate further stringency diversity, with over 150 cities and counties implementing fair-chance hiring rules by the early 2020s. San Francisco's Fair Chance Ordinance, phased in with private-sector provisions effective August 13, 2014, delays criminal history disclosures until after a conditional offer for most employers, while requiring notice and assessment processes for denials. Enforcement mechanisms across these policies typically involve civil penalties administered by state or local agencies, alongside rights for applicants to pursue lawsuits for violations, though thresholds and remedies vary by jurisdiction.

Compliance and Enforcement Challenges

Employers face significant operational hurdles in redesigning job applications to remove criminal history inquiries, which often requires updating online forms, integrating compliance checks into applicant tracking systems, and retraining human resources personnel on revised protocols. Inadvertent violations occur frequently with automated online applications that may retain legacy questions or trigger background prompts prematurely, complicating adherence across multi-jurisdictional operations where policies vary by state and locality. Compliance training is essential but uneven; for instance, nearly half of hiring managers in a 2016 Minnesota study were unaware of ban-the-box requirements, relying on ad hoc guidance from HR or legal teams rather than systematic education. Litigation risks intensify enforcement challenges, as employers must navigate potential Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) actions under Title VII for disparate impact discrimination if criminal screening practices are deemed non-job-related, while simultaneously facing negligent hiring lawsuits if delayed background checks allow hires with relevant criminal histories to cause harm. Such suits have resulted in substantial penalties, including over $500,000 in fines for violations in Washington, D.C., in 2019, highlighting the dual exposure to regulatory penalties and civil claims for workplace injuries attributable to unvetted employees. Exemptions for sensitive positions, such as those involving or public safety, permit earlier inquiries but impose a burden on employers to demonstrate job-relatedness and necessity under federal guidelines, often requiring documented validation studies or assessments that small firms may lack resources to conduct. Proving this threshold proves challenging in practice, as policies demand individualized assessments tying specific convictions to role risks, yet varying state interpretations can lead to disputes over what constitutes sufficient evidence. Enforcement remains hampered by data gaps and limited monitoring; reports from the 2020s indicate persistent noncompliance, with approximately 20% of employers in studied jurisdictions failing to adhere fully, attributed to inadequate proactive audits and capped fines that deter rigorous oversight. Resource constraints at enforcement agencies, such as underfunded state departments, further erode tracking capabilities, resulting in reliance on complainant-driven investigations rather than comprehensive adherence surveys.

Empirical Evidence on Outcomes

Effects on Ex-Offender Employment

Empirical evaluations of Ban the Box (BTB) policies have generally found no significant increase in rates for individuals with s. A study of a 2013 Seattle ordinance, which delayed criminal background checks until after an initial interview, analyzed administrative data and reported negligible impacts on ex-offenders' labor market outcomes, including no detectable rise in hiring or wages. Similarly, broader reviews of BTB implementations indicate that while the policy shifts criminal record inquiries to later hiring stages, it does not translate into higher callback or probabilities for applicants with records, as employers often reject them upon eventual disclosure. Field experiments and quasi-experimental analyses reinforce this pattern. Research using audit studies in and before and after BTB adoption showed that concealing criminal histories initially reduced callbacks for applicants with records by encouraging employers to use demographic proxies for screening, resulting in net fewer interview opportunities overall for this group. Aggregate employment data from states with BTB laws similarly reveal no employment gains for ex-offenders, with some analyses documenting short-term dips attributable to heightened statistical discrimination during the pre-disclosure phase. Recent assessments, including those up to 2024, confirm these neutral or modestly negative effects, attributing them to unresolved information asymmetries that prompt employers to avoid risky hires without reliable early signals of applicant quality. From a causal perspective, BTB's failure to boost ex-offender stems from its limited alteration of underlying hiring incentives: employers, facing legal liabilities for negligent hiring, respond to hidden records by broadening avoidance of high-risk profiles rather than extending more chances, leading to deferred but persistent barriers. pilots, such as those in select cities, have yielded mixed but predominantly neutral results on hiring rates, with no robust evidence of sustained gains even in targeted sectors. These findings hold across peer-reviewed evaluations prioritizing difference-in-differences designs and matched administrative records, underscoring BTB's ineffectiveness in directly enhancing job access for those with convictions.

Impacts on Racial and Demographic Groups

Empirical studies indicate that Ban the Box (BTB) policies have disproportionately harmed prospects for young, low-skilled and men, primarily through statistical by employers who infer higher criminal history risks from demographic proxies such as race, age, and low education levels. A 2016 analysis by economists Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen, using U.S. Census and data from 2003–2011 across jurisdictions adopting BTB, found that these policies reduced the probability by 3.4 percentage points (a 5.1% decline) for young men without college degrees, with similar negative effects for young men, while showing no significant impact or slight positives for comparable White men. This pattern aligns with causal mechanisms where delaying criminal history disclosure prompts employers to screen out applicants from groups statistically more likely to have , exacerbating racial gaps rather than reducing them. Field experiments corroborate these findings, demonstrating widened racial disparities in hiring callbacks post-BTB. In a 2018 study by Amanda Y. Agan and Sonja B. Starr, researchers sent fictitious resumes to employers in jurisdictions with and without BTB, revealing that the -White callback gap increased from about 45% to over 50% in BTB areas, as employers presumed higher criminal risk among applicants without direct record checks. Similar evidence from a J-PAL evaluation highlights how BTB reinforced employer stereotypes associating young and Hispanic men with criminality, leading to fewer callbacks for these demographics despite the policy's aim to mitigate bias. While BTB proponents anticipated benefits for racial minorities given disproportionate incarceration rates—Blacks comprising 33% of the prison population despite being 13% of the U.S. demographic as of 2020—data show no net gains for ex-offenders overall and unintended harms to non-offenders in affected groups. Recent critiques, including a 2025 revisit of Doleac-Hansen by other researchers correcting for miscoded BTB laws, suggest the negative effects may be less pronounced than initially estimated but still affirm statistical risks for minority low-skill workers. Across demographics, women and older workers appear largely unaffected, as their lower baseline prevalence reduces proxy screening incentives.

Influences on Recidivism and Public Safety

A working paper by Doleac and Hansen (2018) analyzed administrative from multiple U.S. jurisdictions adopting Ban the Box policies and found a statistically significant increase in rates among recently released prisoners, with an estimated 3.4 rise in the probability of reoffending within —equivalent to roughly a 4-5% relative increase over baseline rates exceeding 20% in affected cohorts. The authors attribute this to employers facing higher effective risks from uninformed initial hires, resulting in instability upon later record disclosure, which correlates with elevated reoffending risks in longitudinal release . Subsequent reinforces these findings with of crime-type specific effects. A 2025 study using state-level from 2010-2022 identified negative spillovers from Ban the Box laws covering both private and employers, including a 7-12% uptick in offense arrests among ex-offenders in adopting areas, linked to deferred vetting permitting riskier placements without upfront mitigation. Similarly, Sherrard (2020) examined records post-policy implementation and reported no overall change but significant increases for and recidivists, suggesting selective hiring blind spots exacerbate vulnerabilities in high-risk subgroups. Countervailing claims of recidivism declines appear in some advocacy-oriented reports, such as a 2015 policy analysis asserting lower reoffending via improved job access, yet these rely on correlational local data without causal controls or national benchmarks, limiting generalizability against more rigorous difference-in-differences designs in peer-reviewed work. Causal mechanisms underscore that while correlates inversely with reoffending in meta-analyses of reentry programs, policies obscuring records disrupt informed , potentially fostering concealment incentives and reducing deterrent effects from accountability, as evidenced by persistent high baseline (over 75% within five years per federal tracking).

Criticisms and Unintended Consequences

Statistical Discrimination and Proxy Screening

Economic theory posits that "Ban the Box" (BTB) policies, by prohibiting early inquiries into criminal history, induce employers to engage in statistical using observable proxies that correlate with incarceration , such as applicant age, race, and residential . In the absence of direct signals on initial applications, rational employers infer higher for demographic groups with empirically elevated average criminality rates—young and men, for instance—leading to coarser screening that disadvantages even low-risk individuals within those groups. This mechanism aligns with causal models of asymmetric information, where delayed disclosure reduces the efficiency of matching qualified candidates to jobs, as employers substitute imperfect proxies for precise data, pooling high- and low-risk applicants early and rejecting based on group averages. Field experiments provide empirical support for this shift. In a study auditing employer responses to fictitious resumes in and —before and after local BTB adoptions in 2015—Agan and Starr found that the black-white callback gap for young male applicants (under age 30) expanded from 25% pre-BTB to 52% post-BTB, with black callbacks falling by 27 percentage points relative to whites. Similar patterns emerged for zip codes associated with higher crime rates, where callbacks declined post-BTB, indicating employers increasingly screened on neighborhood as a proxy for unobserved criminality. These effects were concentrated among low-skill jobs, where criminal background checks are most relevant, and persisted despite no overall change in employer inquiry practices later in hiring. Subsequent analyses replicate and extend these findings, attributing the callback declines to inference-based biases rather than other factors. Doleac and Hansen's examination of BTB implementation showed a 7-16% drop in employment rates for young men, driven by statistical discrimination on race and age as substitutes for criminal . When criminal records eventually surface during interviews—after initial screening—rejection rates rise for those with histories, but the prior proxy-based filtering already excludes many clean-record applicants from reaching that stage, amplifying mismatches and reducing informative signaling about individual rehabilitation or non-offending status. Critiques from groups, such as claims that these studies overstate by ignoring broader hiring trends, lack peer-reviewed rigor and fail to counter the experimental of causal BTB effects on proxy use.

Employer Costs and Hiring Risks

Ban the Box policies postpone criminal background inquiries until after a conditional job offer, thereby elevating employers' exposure to negligent hiring claims. Negligent hiring doctrine holds employers liable for third-party harms caused by employees if the employer knew or should have known of disqualifying risks through reasonable screening. By delaying checks, employers risk individuals with violent or theft-related convictions undetected initially, potentially resulting in lawsuits for assaults, , or other incidents. For example, a settled a negligent hiring for $675,000 after employing a former inmate with a relevant record who assaulted a coworker, a scenario experts link to restricted early screening. Empirical analyses indicate employers perceive such policies as heightening litigation risks absent protective measures like rehabilitation certificates, which serve as safeguards against suits and reputational damage. These restrictions also generate administrative overhead by necessitating preliminary evaluations—such as interviews and skill assessments—without criminal history data, followed by targeted rescreening of shortlisted candidates. This sequential process raises operational costs in time, personnel, and verification fees, disproportionately affecting small businesses with constrained resources. Although proponents claim expanded applicant pools could offset expenses, critics contend the laws impose unquantified burdens, with scant empirical quantification available to assess the net fiscal impact. Delayed filtering further contributes to hiring mismatches, where candidates advancing past initial stages later fail background reviews, prompting terminations and elevated turnover. In low-wage sectors with inherently high churn rates, such disruptions amplify , , and losses for employers. This inefficiency stems from incomplete information at decision points, leading to investments in hires ultimately deemed unsuitable upon full disclosure.

Overall Policy Ineffectiveness Based on Data

Empirical evaluations, drawing on causal identification strategies such as difference-in-differences exploiting staggered policy adoptions, consistently demonstrate that Ban the Box policies fail to deliver sustained improvements in for ex-offenders. A 2019 review of the accumulated concludes that these interventions yield no net employment gains for individuals with criminal records and may reduce callbacks or hiring probabilities in practice. This assessment synthesizes multiple studies, prioritizing those with robust controls for factors like local labor market conditions over anecdotal or non-causal evidence. Recent analyses as of 2024 reinforce this pattern, showing null or transient effects on post-release job attainment without long-term divergence from counterfactual outcomes absent the policy. On , causal estimates reveal no meaningful reductions and, in several cases, elevated reoffending risks attributable to diminished hiring prospects. For instance, policies correlate with increased criminal activity in affected jurisdictions, as measured by rates post-implementation, with effect sizes implying 1-5% upticks in low-skilled cohorts. A 2025 study further links Ban the Box to heightened drug-related indicators, including a 43% rise in drug mortality two years after adoption in some states, suggesting failed deterrence through pathways. These findings hold across specifications controlling for pre-trends and economic shocks, underscoring that restricted flows do not alter underlying incentives for risk-averse employers, thereby perpetuating idleness-linked reoffense cycles. Aggregating these outcomes, meta-evidence from NBER-affiliated and peer-reviewed journals establishes net harm, where negligible or absent benefits in core metrics are eclipsed by broader labor market distortions and public safety costs. Theoretical alignments with observed highlight how concealing verifiable risk signals prompts inefficient , yielding zero-sum or negative-sum equilibria without addressing root barriers like skill deficits. By 2025, this evidentiary consensus—derived from high-quality, replicable designs—positions Ban the Box as a misdirected intervention, with adoption patterns stabilizing amid accumulating causal refutations rather than expanding amid unverified optimism.

Policy Alternatives and Debates

Market-Based Approaches

Market-based approaches to facilitating ex-offender emphasize voluntary mechanisms that provide employers with credible signals of rehabilitation or , rather than mandating in criminal history inquiries. These include certificates of employability or relief from civil disabilities, which individuals can obtain through administrative or judicial processes to demonstrate reduced based on post-conviction behavior. In New York, established as a model system since the , certificates of relief are granted for non-violent offenses after a period of good conduct, explicitly signaling to employers that the recipient poses lower future , thereby addressing information asymmetries without prohibiting disclosure. Experimental evidence indicates these certificates reduce hiring stigma more effectively than broad disclosure , as they supply affirmative evidence of reform rather than mere omission of records. Private sector incentives further support these approaches through programs like fidelity bonding and tax credits, which lower employer-perceived risks without regulatory . The Federal Bonding Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Labor since 1966, offers free or low-cost up to $5,000–$25,000 against or dishonesty by at-risk hires, including ex-offenders, for the first six months of ; uptake has been limited but demonstrates potential when targeted, with recent analyses suggesting direct subsidies could boost hiring by compensating for asymmetric information on individual reliability. Similarly, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit provides employers up to $9,600 per eligible ex-felon hire, incentivizing voluntary participation; while general evaluations show modest effects, they outperform indiscriminate policies by aligning incentives with firm-specific risk assessments. Targeted reentry interventions, such as work-release programs, exemplify market-oriented strategies by fostering pre-release job skills and networks, enabling smoother transitions without distorting post-release information flows. A of ex-offender programs found that structured vocational training and job placement reduce by 10–20% through skill-building, outperforming policies that merely postpone record checks by directly enhancing productivity signals to s. In , participation in work-release correlated with 15–25% lower rates and higher post-release , as participants gain verifiable work histories that mitigate hesitancy based on empirical rather than mandated nondisclosure. Nonprofits administering such programs, like those offering transitional jobs, report sustained gains when focused on high-risk individuals, contrasting with broader mandates that may induce statistical by obscuring risk differentiation. These approaches prioritize causal mechanisms—such as verifiable rehabilitation evidence and risk-sharing—to meet informational needs, potentially yielding superior outcomes to uniform restrictions.

Complementary Reforms

Policies such as record expungement for non-violent offenses have demonstrated potential to enhance outcomes for eligible individuals by removing barriers posed by minor convictions, without the broad informational asymmetries introduced by universal delays in criminal history disclosure. A study evaluating Pennsylvania's Act 5, which allows set-asides for certain offenses, found that recipients experienced a 10-15% increase in formal rates and reduced probabilities by up to 13%, particularly among those with low-risk profiles. These effects stem from enabling legal denial of minor records on applications, fostering verifiable skill demonstration over hidden histories, though uptake remains low at around 6.5% within five years of eligibility due to procedural hurdles. Vocational skills training programs, when linked to measurable progress and , offer another targeted approach by building employable competencies prior to release, addressing causal deficits in rather than obscuring records. Meta-analyses of such interventions indicate reductions in by 13-43% and gains of 10-20% post-release, with stronger outcomes for programs emphasizing industry-specific training and post-release support. For instance, correctional initiatives focusing on , like those in RAND-assessed models, prioritize low-risk offenders and yield higher hiring rates by signaling reduced public safety risks to employers, contrasting with non-discriminating bans that may amplify proxy screening. Employer incentives, including tax credits for hiring verified low-risk ex-offenders, further complement these by aligning economic motivations with evidence-based . The federal Work Opportunity provides up to $2,400 per qualified ex-felon hired within one year of or release, while simulations show a 30% hiring boost from similar credits and 37% from rehabilitation certificates affirming post- progress. These measures, unlike blanket prohibitions, allow differentiation between non-violent, rehabilitated candidates—who face empirically lower —and those with violent histories posing ongoing threats, as data indicate violent offenders recidivate at rates 20-50% higher than non-violent counterparts. RAND evaluations underscore rehabilitation-focused incentives over inquiry restrictions, noting the former's superior efficacy in boosting employment without unintended increases in statistical or rates.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0144818824000127
  2. https://www.scoutlogicscreening.com/blog/what-is-ban-the-box/
  3. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705880
  4. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/133/1/191/4060073
  5. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ban-the-box-does-more-harm-than-good/
  6. https://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Doleac_testimony_BTB_2019.pdf
  7. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/ban-the-box
  8. https://irle.berkeley.edu/publications/irle-policy-brief/the-limits-of-ban-the-box-legislation/
  9. https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiring-state-and-local-guide/
  10. https://www.goodhire.com/blog/ban-the-box/
  11. https://iprospectcheck.com/ban-the-box-laws/
  12. https://yardstik.com/blog/ban-the-box/
  13. https://www.eeoc.gov/arrestandconviction
  14. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/01/2023-18242/fair-chance-to-compete-for-jobs
  15. https://home.treasury.gov/about/careers-at-treasury/the-fair-chance-to-compete-act/the-fair-chance-to-compete-act-fact-sheet
  16. https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/fair-chance-act/
  17. https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/11/Fair-Chance-Act-FAQ_ENG.pdf
  18. https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/ban-the-box-state-by-state/
  19. https://www.nisarlaw.com/blog/2025/april/ban-the-box-laws/
  20. https://www.accurate.com/ban-the-box/
  21. https://www.lac.org/news/beyond-ban-the-box-four-steps-to-build-on-fair-chance-hiring
  22. https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2015/03/Henry-Jacobs.BantheBox.article.Oct-07.pdf
  23. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/reentry.pdf
  24. https://www.pew.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/sentencing_and_corrections/staterecidivismrevolvingdooramericaprisons20pdf.pdf
  25. https://prisonerswithchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BTB-Employment-History-Report-2016.pdf
  26. https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2015/03/PromisingLocalHireReentryPolicies.pdf
  27. https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/its-not-just-box-understanding-how-ban-box-laws-go-beyond-your-employment
  28. https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2016/09/Madison-Wis.-Ban-the-Box-final-report.pdf
  29. https://www.bigreport.com/globalassets/vs-redesign-icons/pdf/big/white-papers/white-paper_ban-the-box-legislation.pdf
  30. https://www.bigreport.com/resource-center/background-screening/ban-the-box-legislation/
  31. https://www.proskauer.com/alert/minnesota-joins-a-handful-of-other-states-and-cities-to-ban-the-box-for-private-employment
  32. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-consideration-arrest-and-conviction-records-employment-decisions
  33. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/30/fact-sheet-white-house-announces-new-commitments-fair-chance-business
  34. https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2014/03/articles/discrimination/san-francisco-bans-the-box-hiring-employees-with-conviction-part-3/
  35. https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2017/12/Fact-Sheet-California-Fair-Chance-Worker-Know-Your-Rights.pdf
  36. https://careers.state.gov/the-fair-chance-to-compete-act/
  37. https://vendordirectory.shrm.org/company/930321/news/3703727/ban-the-box-laws-2025-complete-compliance-guide
  38. https://natlawreview.com/article/new-york-city-expands-its-ban-box-law
  39. https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2015/04/NELP-Fair-Chance-Ban-the-Box-Toolkit.pdf
  40. https://www.nelp.org/people-with-records-have-fought-hard-to-ban-the-box/
  41. https://www.nelp.org/do-ban-the-box-laws-help-expand-employers-candidate-pools/
  42. https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Americans-with-Criminal-Records-Poverty-and-Opportunity-Profile.pdf
  43. https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109189/documents/HMKP-116-GO00-20190326-SD013.pdf
  44. http://saferfoundation.org/files/documents/Safer%20Recidivism%20Study%202008%20Summary.pdf
  45. http://www.socsci.umn.edu/~uggen/Uggen_asr_00.pdf
  46. https://www.nelp.org/congress-passes-landmark-ban-box-legislation/
  47. https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-Limits-of-Ban-the-Box-Legislation.pdf
  48. https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/minnesota-enacts-ban-box-law-prohibiting-employment-application-criminal-history
  49. https://www.backgroundchecks.com/compliance-and-legislation/another-texas-county-bans-the-box-for-public-employers
  50. https://ballpllc.com/ban-the-box-laws-an-overview/
  51. https://www.beesontayer.com/2014/05/san-francisco-law-curtails-the-use-of-job-applicants-criminal-histories-in-private-employment-decisions/
  52. https://gispi.com/ban-the-box-laws/
  53. https://teravexa.com/blog/understanding-ban-the-box-laws
  54. https://www.workrisenetwork.org/working-knowledge/compliance-challenges-ban-box
  55. https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2021/08/bolder-broader-ban-the-box-laws-how-to-navigate
  56. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/risk-management/ban-box-movement-goes-viral
  57. https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2018/05/articles/background-investigations/ban-the-box-negligence-hiring/
  58. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/708063
  59. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-022137
  60. https://www.nber.org/papers/w22469
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12002451/
  62. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32273/w32273.pdf
  63. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/705880
  64. http://jenni.uchicago.edu/econ341/readings/Agan_Starr_2017_QJE_v133_n1.pdf
  65. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/examining-employer-race-based-discrimination-and-after-ban-box
  66. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88366/ban_the_box_and_racial_discrimination_4.pdf
  67. https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2025/adrm/CES-WP-25-58.html
  68. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24381/w24381.pdf
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12496021/
  70. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3515048
  71. https://copolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/BantheBox-Recidivism.pdf
  72. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22469/w22469.pdf
  73. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795795
  74. https://www.nelp.org/ban-the-box-statistical-discrimination-studies-draw-the-wrong-conclusions/
  75. https://www.certiphi.com/resource-center/background-screening/an-update-on-negligent-hiring-claims-what-the-employer-should-have-known/
  76. https://lawforbusiness.usc.edu/the-ban-that-opened-pandoras-box-the-impact-of-ban-the-box-ordinances-on-employers-nationwide/
  77. https://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Doleac_Hansen_BanTheBox.pdf
  78. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4793&context=faculty_scholarship
  79. https://www.bu.edu/pilj/files/2024/04/Garretson.pdf
  80. https://yalelawandpolicy.org/inter_alia/effectiveness-certificates-relief-collateral-consequence-relief-mechanisms-experimental
  81. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/forget-ban-the-box-and-give-ex-prisoners-employability-certificates/
  82. https://www.lac.org/resource/federal-bonding-program
  83. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12681
  84. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/59416/410855-Employment-Barriers-Facing-Ex-Offenders.PDF
  85. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2100/RR2142/RAND_RR2142.pdf
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226757982_Ex-offender_Employment_Programs_and_Recidivism_A_Meta-Analysis
  87. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2997965X.2025.2518976
  88. https://gceps.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/CarenJu_Ashenfelter_JIWFinal-1.pdf
  89. https://clsphila.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Prescott-Slides.pdf
  90. https://legalaidresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/barriers-to-employment.pdf
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10015282/
  92. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB10000/RB10003/RAND_RB10003.pdf
  93. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/work-opportunity-tax-credit
  94. https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA2786-1.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.