Three key words have changed how employers are looking at applicants with criminal backgrounds: Ban the Box.
Across the country, cities and states are enacting legislation, called “Ban the Box,” which prohibits employers from asking job seekers about their criminal background on applications.
The “box” they want to ban is the check box on applications asking whether or not you’ve got a criminal record.
Philadelphia was the most recent city to pass a law against employers asking candidates their criminal background in the initial interview.
The Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards, which goes into effect in Philadelphia on July 13, ensures equal employment opportunity for those with a criminal history. Employers are prohibited from questioning candidates about criminal history both on the application and in a first interview. They also cannot touch on any arrests that didn’t result in conviction.
If they violate this law, the employer faces a $2,000 penalty.
Temporary agencies are not exempt from this, according to Philadelphia’s new law. An ex-offender on the Crime Report website said temp agencies were instrumental in getting his foot in the door for jobs.
However, he said, companies “do not know that I have a criminal record because the temp agency was not obligated to share that info.” He said that whenever he applies for a full-time job at one of these companies, he is denied because of his record. The same company that claims he was a great contractor denies him a job, most likely because of the little box on the application.
Is this fair? The gentleman is making the effort to get his life in order and wants to be able to pay his bills.
There are staffing agencies out there supporting the placement of ex-offenders. Penmac Personnel recently received an award from the Missouri Department of Corrections for their efforts toward job placement for those with a criminal history.
Interestingly, none of the Philadelphia-based temp agencies that were contacted to comment on their feelings toward the new law responded to my calls. Maybe it’s a little more controversial than we thought.
While Ban the Box seems a valiant attempt at creating opportunities for criminals struggling to rebuild their lives, legislation like this may be a false security blanket for individuals with a criminal history.
Blogger Bill Johnson offers up the opinion that “giving offenders hope and a ‘second chance’ discriminates against good kids.” He feels that, had the offenders never have gone that route in the first place or been properly brought up, Ban the Box laws would be unnecessary. The government’s first job is to protect the citizens, he said. I don’t necessarily agree with Johnson’s definition of discrimination.
What happens when equal opportunity screws us over? Without the added information a background check provides us, we could be working next to a rapist, armed robber or pedophile.
The law does not keep criminal justice agencies from performing criminal background checks.
These checks may not have been getting done in the first place.
Attorney Les Rosen, who happens to be president of the screening firm Employment Screening Resources, says that some staffing firms are already reluctant to conduct pre-employment screening. Cost is a factor, Rosen says, as is the amount of time it takes to get the results back from a background check. This is why some firms don’t do a background check unless the client requires it.
Rosen said this is a mistake, though.
“A staffing agency’s worst nightmare is sending out a temporary worker or a candidate for permanent placement who has a criminal record. Should that person harm a co-worker or member of the public, the staffing company will certainly be sued.”
Graham Staffing Services shared its story of a temporary agency whose employee ran off with the company van and money while on a bank deposit run, never to return.
What are your thoughts on Ban the Box? As a staffing firm, are you in favor of or against this legislation?
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
They just banned the box here.
http://www.stamfordplus.com/stm/information/nws1/publish/News_1/Hartford-adopts-Ban-the-Box13028.shtml?.com%29
I don’t feel to great about it. How’s it going to help or make life any easier? Seems like a waste of time just to let people go through the steps with a “false security blanket”. So what? Come that second interview, the applicant has a criminal record so more than likely the position I’m staffing for doesn’t want that applicant with a criminal history and I just wasted my time and theirs. I think the focus should be on job creation for those with criminal backgrounds. Maybe transition them into skilled worker programs. I’ve worked with some construction, welding, and electrician companies that overlook a lot of criminal records. When it comes to handling of money, trade secrets, etc., I think a company has the right to take a person’s criminal history into account. After all, they’re deciding to put trust into that prospective employee and they should know of any characteristic red flags before moving on to the next stages in interviewing or onto employment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Given that one of the founding developers of TempWorks was an ex-con that has gone on to a highly successful career in both IT and as an author, the ‘box’ strikes me as an inherently unfair and unhelpful distinction whose only raison-d’etre is its brutal efficiency in eliminating candidates.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
I would agree with Gregg that precluding employment based solely on “the box” is a bit of a tragedy.
However, the qualifications must be matched to the position. You can think of a “clean box” as a qualification, one component of an application that speaks to the reliability of an applicant. It shouldn’t be used alone, but in combination with other components of the application and interview and with respect to the nature of the conviction and position being considered.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I can tell you with much certainty that, even in a state like Wisconsin where discrimination on the grounds of criminal conviction is unlawful, an affirmative response to “the question” equates to immediate and automatic rejection most of the time. One of the common responses to this legislation is one of misguided fear: A pedophile is going to be working in my child’s school; my bank teller is going to be a convicted bank robber! This line of thinking truly reveals the lack of understanding many have aout the legislature and the social impact of its absence. Employers can and will still perform background checks, but only after an offer of employment has been made. In the state of Wisconsin, the only way an employer could rescind the offer based on the results of background check is if a significant relationship were found to exsist between the crime and the job. Hence, no pedophiles working in your kids’ schools. But at the same time, a qualified individual applying for an IT or manufacturing position with a drug charge would have the legal right to seek employment and be considered only for their qualifications. The second response that I strongly disagree with is that this legislature favors criminals. I’m not even sure on the logic here, but clearly criminals could not be favored because there would be no immediate identification of criminal vs noncriminal status. If taking away the current advantage of the latter group means favoritism toward the former, then this only sheds light on how serious the issue is and how necessary this legislature truly is. I graduated college with a 3.93. I had a research assistantship, a ton of awards, and a promising future. But during my senior year, some unique circumstances led me to take a new identifier: convicted felon. You would never suspect as much if you met me, but the “box” has led this honors student to be an unemployed, frustrated, professional resume writer who is forced to rely on medicaid to supply health insurance for her children. I would think that taxpayers would rather give me and the others like me a fair shot at a job than support us due to our inability to conquer the obstacles created by the box.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
I think ban the box is a step in the right direction. It doesn’t solve the problem though. I think public opinion that isn’t based on any facts or research is the problem when it comes to felons. Companies don’t even take into account the offense and how it relates to the job at hand, how long ago the offense happened, etc. People assume all felons are the same no matter what the crime, people should know better than that. Companies use the excuse and flawed thinking of saying they want to protect the public/customers; this assumes and gives the impression that all felons are dangerous, thieves, and untrustworthy. News flash- all felons are different just as their offense is different. Also companies arent protecting the public seeing how they discriminate against a large amount of people who are qualified, it doesn’t protect companies and it hurts society in the long run because those people who companies discriminate against will likely turn to crime and drugs .Seeing how we live in a brainwashed society, the only way to truely solve the problem of fair chances for felons and employment is for the government to step in and make some kind of legislation that truely helps like restructuring of expungment laws and giving out more pardons. Restructure expungment qualitifications in each state so that more offenders can apply( exception rape, murder, anything involving children). Once a number of years has passed and a person has proven to be a productive and contributing member of society, they should be giving the opportunity for a sscond chance, not a third or fourth but just a second. Every state already has expungment but qualifications are narrow, just make changes to them. Expungment will allow for a person offense to be sealed from public, thus giving a person a fair/ equal chance when it comes to background checks and employment. Not to mention it will make public safer because crime rate will go down as to less offenders reoffending (recidivism)because of lack of options and money. That means less robberies, burglaries, thefts in general, drugs (dealing and using), and a whole list of crimes too long to list. Tax payers also benefit because less money is spent on mass incarcertion. Its a win win situation. If you agree/disagree, or have any ideas on how to make a difference for felons; email me- delmar.hardin@yahoo.com. I read blogs, news feeds, etc and see the same story ” I can’t get job, they wont hire me, I have a felony please help”. Well, lets combine ideas, and get something started, a nonprofit or something. Theres power in numbers so lets band together and be heard. Things will change if we make it. I hope to hear from people.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
We need to support the ban on asking for this question or even considering it for a Job, When an individual has a criminal record how is he or she supports her family? if anyone does any mistake and we are all humans, and even if the individual has full intentions of re cooping and supporting the family, our laws don’t allow this individual to have a fair chance in our Society. I am not saying that give robbers a banking cash teller job but there has to be direct impact what an individual did and the new Job..
Like or Dislike:
2 
0