TY - JOUR
T1 - Redeemed Compared to Whom?
T2 - Comparing the Distributional Properties of Arrest Risk Across Populations of Provisional Employees With and Without a Criminal Record
AU - DeWitt, Samuel E.
AU - Bushway, Shawn D.
AU - Siwach, Garima
AU - Kurlychek, Megan C.
N1 - Funding Information:
Data Disclaimer: These data are provided by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and the Department of Health (DOH). The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not those of DCJS or DOH. Neither New York State nor DCJS or DOH assumes liability for its contents or use thereof.
Funding Information:
The authors are extremely grateful to our New York State partners who made this project possible. We would like to thank Terry Salo, Leslie Kellam, and their team at the Division of Criminal Justice Services; Daryl Barra and his team at the Department of Health; and the research staff at the Department of Labor for their encouragement, access to data, and complete support. We extend a special thank-you to Megan Denver, who, as a member of our research team, provided helpful feedback on this article and support with the data. All errors remain our own. Direct correspondence to Samuel E. DeWitt, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 5084 Colvard Hall, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223 (e-mail: sdewitt2@uncc.edu).
Funding Information:
Funding Disclaimer: This research was supported by Award 2012-MU-MU-0048 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Society of Criminology
PY - 2017/8
Y1 - 2017/8
N2 - Research Summary: By using data on provisional employees with and without criminal records, we find that existing standards of a “reasonable amount of [arrest] risk” (derived from “time to redemption” research) for an employer to incur in hiring individuals with criminal histories prove too onerous for many employees without records to meet, let alone those with records. We then propose an alternative method of assessing arrest risk across these populations—benchmarking—and provide several alternative standards, illustrating that they (a) clear a demonstrable majority of employees without records and a sizable minority of those with a criminal history and (b) do not increase the risk incurred by employers over and above the level they already accept among employees without records. Policy Implications: Our findings suggest that the almost singular importance placed on “time since last” policies when conducting criminal background checks is ill-placed as the risk of arrest across populations of employees with and without criminal histories overlaps more than the results of extant research would imply. Although future research needs to be conducted to ascertain whether our findings generalize to other employment contexts, current background check practices would be better served if they were to adopt an approach that chooses a specific threshold for comparison, which should align with an easily communicated and face-valid cost function. Furthermore, the selected standard should (a) hold all individuals to the same standard and (b) be one that a demonstrable majority of individuals without criminal records can meet.
AB - Research Summary: By using data on provisional employees with and without criminal records, we find that existing standards of a “reasonable amount of [arrest] risk” (derived from “time to redemption” research) for an employer to incur in hiring individuals with criminal histories prove too onerous for many employees without records to meet, let alone those with records. We then propose an alternative method of assessing arrest risk across these populations—benchmarking—and provide several alternative standards, illustrating that they (a) clear a demonstrable majority of employees without records and a sizable minority of those with a criminal history and (b) do not increase the risk incurred by employers over and above the level they already accept among employees without records. Policy Implications: Our findings suggest that the almost singular importance placed on “time since last” policies when conducting criminal background checks is ill-placed as the risk of arrest across populations of employees with and without criminal histories overlaps more than the results of extant research would imply. Although future research needs to be conducted to ascertain whether our findings generalize to other employment contexts, current background check practices would be better served if they were to adopt an approach that chooses a specific threshold for comparison, which should align with an easily communicated and face-valid cost function. Furthermore, the selected standard should (a) hold all individuals to the same standard and (b) be one that a demonstrable majority of individuals without criminal records can meet.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028312972&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028312972&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/1745-9133.12309
DO - 10.1111/1745-9133.12309
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85028312972
VL - 16
SP - 963
EP - 997
JO - Criminology & Public Policy
JF - Criminology & Public Policy
SN - 1538-6473
IS - 3
ER -