Perceived Criminality, Criminal Background Checks

and the Racial Hiring Preferences of Employers

Harry J. HolzerGeorgetown University

Steven RaphaelUC Berkeley

Michael A. Stoll

UCLA

Figure 2.1Prison and Total Incarceration Rates, 1925-2004

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Inm

ates

per

100

,000

peo

ple

Prisons Only

Prison and Jail

Source: See text.

Figure 2.3Incarceration Rates for African-American and White Men

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Inca

rcer

atio

n R

ate

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Bla

ck-W

hite

Rat

io

Source: Harrison and Beck (2005), and BJS bulletins on the prison population from pervious years.

White Men

Black Men

Ratio of Black to White

Figure 2.4Prevalence of Incarceration among Adult Males, 1974-2001

1.4 1.5 1.7 1.92.3 2.6

8.7 8.9

9.9

12.0

15.0

16.6

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

1974 1979 1986 1991 1997 2001

% o

f A

dult

Men

Eve

r In

carc

erat

ed

Black Men

White Men

Hispanic Men

Source: Bonzcar (2003)

Figure 2.5Cumulative Risk of Incarceration for Adult Men, 1974-2001

2.2 2.53.6

4.45.4 5.9

13.4 13.4

17.4

31.032.2

29.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1974 1979 1986 1991 1997 2001

Lik

elih

ood

of E

ver

Bei

ng I

ncar

cera

ted

Black Men

Hispanic Men

White Men

Source: Bonzcar (1997, 2003)

Collateral Consequences of ImprisonmentIndividual Employment Public Assistance, Voting, Public Housing, Driver’s

Licenses, Adoptive and Foster Parenting, Student Loans

Community Neighborhoods, families, health, state budgets Groups with High Incarceration Levels

Why Are Employers Adverse to Hiring Ex-Offenders?

Reluctant to hire ex-offenders May steal or harm customers Imperfect monitoring of employees-premium on

trustworthiness

Certain occupations are legally closed to applicants with prior felony convictions

Protect against lawsuits

Legally liable for criminal actions of employees - theory of negligent hiring

Self-Reported Employer Willingness to Hire Applicants with Criminal Records

0.125

0.259

0.421

0.195

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Definitely Will Probably Will Probably Not Definitely Not

Prop

ort

ion

of F

irms

Self-Reported Employer Willingness to Hire Applicants from Various Disadvantaged (Low-Skilled) Groups

0.518

0.572

0.191

0.29

0.404 0.392 0.399

0.538

0.066

0.024

0.354

0.158

0.012 0.012

0.056

0.015

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Welfare Recipient GED no High School Diploma Spotty Work History Unemployed for More than aYear

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f F

irm

s

Definitely Will

Probably Will

Probably Not

Definitely Not

Correlates of Employer Aversion to Ex-Offenders• Smaller establishments

• Service and FIRE sectors (Manufacturing open to hiring)

• Customer Contact

• Use Informal Recruiting Methods

• Unwilling to hire other “disadvantaged groups”

Potential Mechanisms to Act on Aversion Use of Criminal Background Checks

Statistical discrimination

Do employers have access to criminal records? Records of arrests, convictions, and time served

are housed in state central repositories.

In general, states are more likely to give out information on conviction than arrest.

The U.S. DOJ recently concluded that criminal history record information is becoming more available to non-criminal justice users.

Several firms advertise on the internet, offering nationwide criminal background checks for as little as $15.

Figure 5Proportion of Firms that Check Backgrounds, 1992-94 & 2001

0.316

0.164

0.519

0.455

0.177

0.369

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

Always Sometimes Never

1992-94 2001

Frequency of Criminal History Record Checks by Employer Willingness to Hire Applicants with Criminal Records

0.190

0.262

0.298

0.563

0.1960.208

0.175

0.115

0.615

0.531 0.527

0.322

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

Definitely Will Probably Will Probably Not Definitely Not

Likelihood that the employer would accept an applicant with a criminal records

Fre

qu

ency

th

at e

mp

loye

rs c

hec

k cr

imin

al b

ackg

rou

nd

s

Always

Sometimes

Never

Use of Criminal Background Checks larger firms

industries with more customer contact (retail trade, service and FIRE)

increasing over time

mostly from private sources

Effect of Checks on Black Hiring Ambiguous Checking employers more likely to

eliminate Black applicants since they are more likely to have criminal history records

Non-checking employers may infer likelihood of past conviction based on race (perceived criminality)

Description of the dataMulti-City Study of Urban Inequality

Conducted between June 1992 and May 1994 in Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and Los Angeles

Sample of firms generated from two sources: (1) a concurrent household survey, and (2) a sample of firms purchased from Survey Samples Incorporated (SSI).

SSI list was stratified by establishment size and sampled according to the distribution of employment across size categories.

Telephone surveys were conducted with the person at the firm in charge of hiring for firms that have hired into a position not requiring a college degree in the last three years.

The response rate for successfully screened firms was 67 percent.

Figure 3 The Proportion of Recently Filled Jobs (and Applicants) Into Which Black Men and Women Were Hired by Firm's Use of Criminal Background Checks, 2001

6.8

8.9

6.1

10.9

7.17.3

9.4

11.2

5.3

7.3

3.3

5.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Hires Applicants Hires Applicants

Black Males Black Females

Per

cen

t

All Firms Checks Does Not Check

Figure 10Percentage Point Difference in the Likelihood that the Last Hire is Black, (Employers

that Check Criminal Backgrounds Minus Employers that Do Not)

8.60%

4.8%4.5%

-1.9%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

No Controls Spatial Location Spatial Location plusApplicant Pool

Spatial Location, ApplicantPool, and Employer

Characteristics

Other Major Findings Effects stronger for firms unwilling to hire

ex-offenders and for smaller firms

Pattern not explained by application patterns

Similar effect for those with spotty work history

Conclusions Employers who use checks more likely to hire

black applicants than employers who do not.

Implies that adverse consequences of checks on those with criminal histories is more than offset by positive effects of eliminating statistical discrimination.

More true for firms unwilling to hire ex-offenders

What to Do to Raise Employment? Supports for Reentry Reverse Bans on Financial Aid and Public Assistance Employment Bans Based on Content of Criminal

History, Not Blanket Use Conviction Not Arrest Records Ensure Accuracy of Records Incentivise Desistance-Expunge Certain Records After

Fixed Time Period Indemnify Employers – Bonds, Not in Blanket Fashion Re-examine Federal, State and Local

Employment/Licensing Restrictions Child Support

Figure 22 Predicted Means in Hiring Ex-Offenders by Whether and How Employers Check

Criminal Background of Applicants

0.014

0.011

0.022

0.010

0.023

0.021

0.003

0.016

0.0210.022

0.021

Actual

Mea

n

Panel

A.

Che

cks C

rimina

l Bac

kgro

und

Doe

s Not

Che

ck

Panel

B.

Le

gally

Req

uired

to C

heck

Not

Leg

ally R

equir

ed to

Che

ck

Doe

s Not

Che

ck

Panel

C.

Le

gally

Req

uired

and

Use

Crim

inal J

ustic

e A

genc

ies

Leg

ally R

equir

ed a

nd U

se P

rivat

e Age

ncies

Not

Leg

ally R

equir

ed a

nd U

se C

rimina

l Jus

tice

Agenc

ies

Not

Leg

ally R

equir

ed a

nd U

se P

rivat

e Age

ncies

Doe

s Not

Che

ck