犯罪背景调查法与美国劳动力市场的不平等

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Criminology & Public Policy Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12662
David McElhattan
{"title":"犯罪背景调查法与美国劳动力市场的不平等","authors":"David McElhattan","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research summary</h3>\n \n <p>A growing literature documents the effect of criminal justice contact on inequalities in the labor market. While ample evidence indicates that a criminal record itself imposes considerable disadvantage, the formal legal mechanisms that may contribute to criminal record-based exclusion have received less empirical attention. The present study examines how one such mechanism—legal requirements for employers and license boards to perform criminal background checks—shapes labor market outcomes among formerly incarcerated people. The study draws from novel longitudinal data on the extensiveness of background check requirements at the state level, as well as individual-level data on incarceration, wages, and unemployment from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Results show that while the extensiveness of state-level background check requirements does not significantly affect the likelihood of unemployment, formerly incarcerated people residing in states where background check requirements are extensive are estimated to earn significantly lower wages than their counterparts in states with few screening mandates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\n \n <p>Criminal background check requirements stand as significant policy barriers that diminish the earning potential of formerly incarcerated people. Policy makers seeking to mitigate the collateral consequences of criminal convictions should narrow the scope of these laws to target specific, highly sensitive occupations, as opposed to broader workplace contexts. Reforms should also address persistent data quality issues in state criminal history record systems and shift the burdens imposed by incomplete or erroneous rap sheets. To minimize adverse self-selection, background check procedures should clarify for applicants the role that a criminal history record may play in clearance decisions. Finally, future research should assess the marginal benefit of criminal background checks compared with other methods of screening prospective hires and licensees.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9133.12662","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Criminal background check laws and labor market inequality in the United States\",\"authors\":\"David McElhattan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1745-9133.12662\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Research summary</h3>\\n \\n <p>A growing literature documents the effect of criminal justice contact on inequalities in the labor market. While ample evidence indicates that a criminal record itself imposes considerable disadvantage, the formal legal mechanisms that may contribute to criminal record-based exclusion have received less empirical attention. The present study examines how one such mechanism—legal requirements for employers and license boards to perform criminal background checks—shapes labor market outcomes among formerly incarcerated people. The study draws from novel longitudinal data on the extensiveness of background check requirements at the state level, as well as individual-level data on incarceration, wages, and unemployment from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Results show that while the extensiveness of state-level background check requirements does not significantly affect the likelihood of unemployment, formerly incarcerated people residing in states where background check requirements are extensive are estimated to earn significantly lower wages than their counterparts in states with few screening mandates.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\\n \\n <p>Criminal background check requirements stand as significant policy barriers that diminish the earning potential of formerly incarcerated people. Policy makers seeking to mitigate the collateral consequences of criminal convictions should narrow the scope of these laws to target specific, highly sensitive occupations, as opposed to broader workplace contexts. Reforms should also address persistent data quality issues in state criminal history record systems and shift the burdens imposed by incomplete or erroneous rap sheets. To minimize adverse self-selection, background check procedures should clarify for applicants the role that a criminal history record may play in clearance decisions. Finally, future research should assess the marginal benefit of criminal background checks compared with other methods of screening prospective hires and licensees.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminology & Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9133.12662\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminology & Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12662\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12662","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

摘要

研究摘要 越来越多的文献记录了刑事司法接触对劳动力市场不平等的影响。虽然有大量证据表明犯罪记录本身会造成相当大的不利影响,但可能会导致基于犯罪记录的排斥的正式法律机制却较少受到实证研究的关注。本研究探讨了这样一种机制--对雇主和执照委员会进行犯罪背景调查的法律要求--如何影响曾被监禁者的劳动力市场结果。本研究利用了州一级背景调查要求广泛性的新型纵向数据,以及《收入动态面板研究》(Panel Study of Income Dynamics)中关于监禁、工资和失业的个人层面数据。结果表明,虽然州一级背景调查要求的广泛性对失业的可能性没有显著影响,但据估算,居住在背景调查要求广泛的州的曾被监禁者的工资收入明显低于那些很少有筛查要求的州的同类人。政策含义犯罪背景调查要求是削弱曾被监禁者收入潜力的重要政策障碍。寻求减轻刑事定罪附带后果的政策制定者应缩小这些法律的适用范围,使其针对特定的、高度敏感的职业,而不是更广泛的工作场所。改革还应解决各州犯罪历史记录系统中长期存在的数据质量问题,并转移不完整或错误的犯罪记录所带来的负担。为尽量减少不利的自我选择,背景调查程序应向申请人说明犯罪历史记录在审批决定中可能发挥的作用。最后,未来的研究应评估犯罪背景调查与其他筛选潜在雇员和持证人的方法相比的边际效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Criminal background check laws and labor market inequality in the United States

Research summary

A growing literature documents the effect of criminal justice contact on inequalities in the labor market. While ample evidence indicates that a criminal record itself imposes considerable disadvantage, the formal legal mechanisms that may contribute to criminal record-based exclusion have received less empirical attention. The present study examines how one such mechanism—legal requirements for employers and license boards to perform criminal background checks—shapes labor market outcomes among formerly incarcerated people. The study draws from novel longitudinal data on the extensiveness of background check requirements at the state level, as well as individual-level data on incarceration, wages, and unemployment from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Results show that while the extensiveness of state-level background check requirements does not significantly affect the likelihood of unemployment, formerly incarcerated people residing in states where background check requirements are extensive are estimated to earn significantly lower wages than their counterparts in states with few screening mandates.

Policy implications

Criminal background check requirements stand as significant policy barriers that diminish the earning potential of formerly incarcerated people. Policy makers seeking to mitigate the collateral consequences of criminal convictions should narrow the scope of these laws to target specific, highly sensitive occupations, as opposed to broader workplace contexts. Reforms should also address persistent data quality issues in state criminal history record systems and shift the burdens imposed by incomplete or erroneous rap sheets. To minimize adverse self-selection, background check procedures should clarify for applicants the role that a criminal history record may play in clearance decisions. Finally, future research should assess the marginal benefit of criminal background checks compared with other methods of screening prospective hires and licensees.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Short‐term evaluation of Cure Violence St. Louis: Challenges, triumphs, and lessons learned Situational crime prevention as a harm mitigation policy for active shooter incidents Locked up and awaiting trial: Testing the criminogenic and punitive effects of spending a week or more in pretrial detention Lessons learned from Dread darknet communities: How and why are fraudsters targeting the elderly to be victims or accomplices? Direct incentives may increase employment of people with criminal records
×
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