Question

Cite at least 3 examples where ban of box law has been working effectively, or has not been working effectively. Provide the details of each example (states or cities involved and why in each case they did or did not work out).

Answer 1

Answer.

Ban the box refers to a grassroots effort to limit criminal record inquiries remove the check box on job applications where a candidate are required to indicate whether s/he has ever been convicted of a crime. Critics of ban-the-box laws, however, argue that the law doesn’t work for many ex-offenders in private organisations based in Chicago, Illinois, and actually decreases employment for black and Hispanic men who don't have criminal records. The absence of a criminality check indicates that employers may be more likely to guess that African American and Hispanic men have a criminal record.

Secondly, it is seen that outlawing the use of background criminal check boxes in the job application forms can have the desired positive effect and help improve the job prospects for ex-offenders and protect them from discrimination. For example, in New York City, an employer cannot mention that it will conduct a background check on criminal history before a conditional offer.

However, there is another contrary evidence which shows the efficacy of ‘ban the box’ law especially in the state of California where it has emerged as one of the strongest state laws in the country. It helps to ensure that the majority of Californians with a conviction record, are judged by their qualifications and work experience, and not reflexively rejected by employers in order the beginning of the recruitment process.

While Hiring candidates with criminal backgrounds may not be ideal for some industries and occupations, ban-the-box laws take that into account as these laws require employers to look first at a candidate's qualifications and then evaluate if there is a disqualifying factor, such as a criminal conviction within a certain time frame that is relevant to the job, such as checking for a candidate’s past conviction of embezzlement while considering the candidate for a bank executive job.