Direct incentives may increase employment of people with criminal records

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Criminology & Public Policy Pub Date : 2024-08-25 DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12681
Shawn D. Bushway, Justin T. Pickett
{"title":"Direct incentives may increase employment of people with criminal records","authors":"Shawn D. Bushway, Justin T. Pickett","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research summaryAlthough society benefits when people with criminal records are employed, employers are reluctant to hire them. Can we diminish this reluctance with direct incentives that reduce the cost of employing record‐holders or that compensate for the associated risk? If so, will the beneficial effects of incentives emerge under traditional hiring, where job applicants disclose criminal history information at the application stage, and under Ban‐the‐Box, where they do not? To answer these questions, we conducted two preregistered experiments with a national sample of hiring decision‐makers (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 1,000). The first was a conjoint analysis where participants chose between applicants who randomly varied on eight attributes, including criminal record (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 13,998 choices). It corresponded to traditional hiring, where applicants’ criminal records are available at the outset. The second experiment involved a series of picture‐based factorial vignettes depicting tentatively hired employees later discovered to have records (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 3,989 decisions). It approximated Ban‐the‐Box. In both experiments, a $2,400 tax credit and $25,000 insurance against losses from employee dishonesty reduced participants’ reluctance to hire record‐holders. Rehabilitation certificates also had beneficial effects under Ban‐the‐Box.Policy implicationsAcross two experiments, we found that a $2,400 tax credit and $25,000 insurance both reduced participants’ reluctance to hire record‐holders; they did so under traditional hiring and Ban‐the‐Box, and they did so regardless of whether applicants had misdemeanor or felony convictions. The clear policy implication is that employers should receive both incentives. Two federal programs, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the Federal Bonding Program, currently offer similar incentives, but neither program is used widely. Our findings indicate that steps should be taken to increase their use and to expand them. Because rehabilitation certificates were also helpful for getting record‐holders hired, steps should be taken to increase their use as well.","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12681","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research summaryAlthough society benefits when people with criminal records are employed, employers are reluctant to hire them. Can we diminish this reluctance with direct incentives that reduce the cost of employing record‐holders or that compensate for the associated risk? If so, will the beneficial effects of incentives emerge under traditional hiring, where job applicants disclose criminal history information at the application stage, and under Ban‐the‐Box, where they do not? To answer these questions, we conducted two preregistered experiments with a national sample of hiring decision‐makers (n = 1,000). The first was a conjoint analysis where participants chose between applicants who randomly varied on eight attributes, including criminal record (n = 13,998 choices). It corresponded to traditional hiring, where applicants’ criminal records are available at the outset. The second experiment involved a series of picture‐based factorial vignettes depicting tentatively hired employees later discovered to have records (n = 3,989 decisions). It approximated Ban‐the‐Box. In both experiments, a $2,400 tax credit and $25,000 insurance against losses from employee dishonesty reduced participants’ reluctance to hire record‐holders. Rehabilitation certificates also had beneficial effects under Ban‐the‐Box.Policy implicationsAcross two experiments, we found that a $2,400 tax credit and $25,000 insurance both reduced participants’ reluctance to hire record‐holders; they did so under traditional hiring and Ban‐the‐Box, and they did so regardless of whether applicants had misdemeanor or felony convictions. The clear policy implication is that employers should receive both incentives. Two federal programs, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the Federal Bonding Program, currently offer similar incentives, but neither program is used widely. Our findings indicate that steps should be taken to increase their use and to expand them. Because rehabilitation certificates were also helpful for getting record‐holders hired, steps should be taken to increase their use as well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直接激励措施可增加有犯罪记录者的就业机会
研究摘要虽然有犯罪记录的人就业对社会有益,但雇主却不愿雇用他们。我们能否通过直接的激励措施来减少这种不情愿,从而降低雇用有犯罪记录者的成本或补偿相关风险?如果可以,那么在求职者在申请阶段就披露犯罪记录信息的传统招聘方式下,以及在不披露犯罪记录信息的 "禁酒令 "下,激励措施是否会产生有益的影响?为了回答这些问题,我们对全国的招聘决策者样本(n = 1,000)进行了两次预先登记的实验。第一个实验是联合分析,参与者在包括犯罪记录在内的八个属性随机变化的申请人中进行选择(n = 13,998 个选择)。该实验与传统的招聘方法相对应,即一开始就可以获得申请人的犯罪记录。第二个实验涉及一系列以图片为基础的因子小故事,描述的是被初步录用的员工后来被发现有犯罪记录的情况(n = 3,989 个决定)。该实验近似于 "禁止箱 "实验。在这两项实验中,2400 美元的税收减免和 25000 美元的员工不诚实损失保险降低了参与者不愿雇用有记录者的程度。政策含义在两个实验中,我们发现,2400 美元的税收减免和 25000 美元的保险都降低了参与者不愿意雇用有案底者的程度;在传统招聘和 "Ban-the-Box "实验中,它们都起到了这样的作用,而且无论申请人是否有轻罪或重罪前科,它们都起到了这样的作用。其政策含义显然是,雇主应该同时获得这两种激励。目前有两项联邦计划--工作机会税收抵免计划和联邦担保计划--提供类似的激励措施,但这两项计划都没有得到广泛应用。我们的研究结果表明,应该采取措施增加和扩大这两项计划的使用范围。由于康复证书也有助于记录保持者获得就业,因此也应采取措施增加其使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Criminology & Public Policy
Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Criminology & Public Policy is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to policy discussions of criminology research findings. Focusing on the study of criminal justice policy and practice, the central objective of the journal is to strengthen the role of research findings in the formulation of crime and justice policy by publishing empirically based, policy focused articles.
期刊最新文献
Responding to nonemergency calls for service via video: A randomized controlled trial Issue Information Bail reform and pretrial release: Examining the implementation of In re Humphrey Do foster youth face harsher juvenile justice outcomes? Reinvestigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice processing Short-term evaluation of Cure Violence St. Louis: Challenges, triumphs, and lessons learned
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1