Ban-the-box laws prohibit “checkboxes” that ask job applicants whether they have a criminal record. These laws aim to make it easier for people who have served sentences to reintegrate into society.
BTB laws, however, interfere with employers’ freedom to hire whomever they wish. It matters, therefore, whether BTB laws achieve their stated goal, and with what side effects.
examines the effectiveness of [BTB] laws and finds that they have had no discernible impact on employment for young men without college degrees.
This result is plausible, in part, because most BTB laws allow employers to ask about criminal history later in the hiring process. Thus, employers can still get this information, but at the cost of wasted time for them and applicants.
Earlier research has found negative effects of BTB laws:
BTB policies decrease the probability of being employed by 3.4 percentage points (5.1%) for young, low-skilled black men, and by 2.3 percentage points (2.9%) for young, low-skilled Hispanic men.
The likely explanation is that when employers cannot see applicants’ criminal records, they avoid hiring those they regard as more likely to have such a history, namely, young and lower-skilled black and Hispanic men. But when employers can review criminal histories, they are less likely to discriminate against all minority candidates.
A further negative of BTB laws is that they crowd out a more fundamental goal: reducing the number of criminals by eliminating laws, like drug prohibition, that should never have existed in the first place.
Lemoni Matsumoto, an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, contributed to this article.
