Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Defensible decisions

Defensible decisions Employers using criminal background checks to make hiring determinations must carefully balance the need to protect themselves and their clients against legal mandates designed to protect the rights of individuals with criminal records. Yet, surprisingly little research examines this balancing act. The purpose of this paper is to examine how one large agency, the New York Department of Health (DOH), navigates a myriad of mandates to convey and create legitimacy in compliance with complex legal mandates and contrasting interests.Design/methodology/approachPrior research on civil right legislation suggests that while companies may create regulations that appear to comply with such mandates, their actual practice does not always comply with their own rules (Dobbin et al., 1988). Therefore, this study addresses two key questions: do the DOH policies appear to comply with the relevant New York State law and does the DOH effectively implement the policies in a way that upholds New York State law. Specifically, this study estimates probit models on a sample of over 7,000 potential employees with criminal records to determine compliance with the criteria established by law and policy.FindingsFindings show that the variables indicated by law/regulations such as offense severity and time since conviction work in the intended direction. Using only these criteria the models are able to correctly predict clearance decisions approximately of the time and that extra-legal factors such as race and gender do not further influence final determinations.Practical implicationsThese findings have practical implications for employers as they show that it is possible for employers to design formal rules that navigate this complex landscape while still opening up employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records.Originality/valueThis is important as many employers either utilize criminal background checks without regulation or are fearful of embarking on efforts to meet regulations such as those promulgated by the EEOC. This research is the first of its kind to actually document and explore the ability of a large employer to conduct socially responsible criminal history background checks. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal Emerald Publishing

Defensible decisions

Download PDF
18 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/defensible-decisions-eKW9BNtxej
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
2040-7149
DOI
10.1108/edi-09-2018-0176
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Employers using criminal background checks to make hiring determinations must carefully balance the need to protect themselves and their clients against legal mandates designed to protect the rights of individuals with criminal records. Yet, surprisingly little research examines this balancing act. The purpose of this paper is to examine how one large agency, the New York Department of Health (DOH), navigates a myriad of mandates to convey and create legitimacy in compliance with complex legal mandates and contrasting interests.Design/methodology/approachPrior research on civil right legislation suggests that while companies may create regulations that appear to comply with such mandates, their actual practice does not always comply with their own rules (Dobbin et al., 1988). Therefore, this study addresses two key questions: do the DOH policies appear to comply with the relevant New York State law and does the DOH effectively implement the policies in a way that upholds New York State law. Specifically, this study estimates probit models on a sample of over 7,000 potential employees with criminal records to determine compliance with the criteria established by law and policy.FindingsFindings show that the variables indicated by law/regulations such as offense severity and time since conviction work in the intended direction. Using only these criteria the models are able to correctly predict clearance decisions approximately of the time and that extra-legal factors such as race and gender do not further influence final determinations.Practical implicationsThese findings have practical implications for employers as they show that it is possible for employers to design formal rules that navigate this complex landscape while still opening up employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records.Originality/valueThis is important as many employers either utilize criminal background checks without regulation or are fearful of embarking on efforts to meet regulations such as those promulgated by the EEOC. This research is the first of its kind to actually document and explore the ability of a large employer to conduct socially responsible criminal history background checks.

Journal

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jun 25, 2019

Keywords: Employment; Discrimination; Criminal background checks

References

  • Census Bureau background check Lawsuit settlement should be a wake up call for employers
    Ahearn, T.
  • No foot in the door: an experimental study of employment discrimination against older workers
    Bendick, M.; Brown, L.; Wall, K.
  • Demographic patterns of cumulative arrest prevalence by ages 18 and 23
    Brame, R.; Bushway, S.D.; Paternoster, R.; Turner, M.G.
  • Bureau of justice statistics, US Dep’t of Justice
    Debacco, D.A.; Greenspan, O.M.
  • Criminal records and employment: a survey of Americans’ experiences and attitudes
    Denver, M.; Pickett, J.; Bushway, S.D.
  • Legal environments and organizational governance: the expansion of due process in the American workplace
    Edelman, L.B.
  • Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: organizational mediation of civil rights law
    Edelman, L.B.
  • The endogeneity of legal regulation: grievance procedures as rational myth
    Edelman, L.B.; Uggen, C.; Erlanger, H.S.
  • Two new EEOC criminal record lawsuits underscore important strategic and practical considerations for employers conducting background checks
    Fliegel, R.; Hartstein, B.; Mora, J.L.
  • Ban the box to promote ex-offender employment
    Henry, J.S.; Jacobs, J.B.
  • Perceived criminality, criminal background checks, and the racial hiring practices of employers
    Holzer, H.J.; Raphael, S.; Stoll, M.A.
  • How affirmative action became diversity management: employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961 to 1996
    Kelly, E.; Dobbin, F.
  • Conviction records and disparate impact
    King, A.G.; Fliegel, R.M.
  • When ‘best practices’ win, employees lose: symbolic compliance and judicial inference in federal equal employment opportunity cases
    Krieger, L.H.; Best, R.K.; Edelman, L.B.
  • Legal ambiguity in managerial assessments of criminal records
    Lageson, S.; Vuolo, M.; Uggen, C.
  • Soft skillls and race: an investigation of black men’s employment problems
    Moss, P.; Tilly, C.
  • The mark of a criminal record
    Pager, D.
  • The sociology of discrimination: racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets
    Pager, D.; Shephard, H.
  • Discrimination in a low wage labor market: a field experiment
    Pager, D.; Western, B.; Bonikowski, B.
  • Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time
    Quillian, L.; Pager, D.; Hexel, O.; Midtbøen, A.H.
  • Banning the box but keeping the discrimination? Disparate impact and employers’ overreliance on criminal background checks
    Smith, J.J.
  • The long-term economic impact of criminalization in American childhoods
    Smith, J.P.
  • The effect of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders
    Stoll, M.A.; Bushway, S.D.
  • Legal rational myths: the new institutionalism and the law and society tradition
    Suchman, M.C.; Edelman, L.B.
  • The edge of stigma: an experimental audit of the effects of low-level criminal records on employment
    Uggen, C.; Vuolo, M.; Lageson, S.; Ruhland, E.; Whitham, E.
  • Criminal record questions in the era of ‘ban the box’
    Vuolo, M.; Lageson, S.; Uggen, C.
  • When organizations rule: judicial deference to institutionalized employment structures
    Edelman, L.B.; Krieger, L.H.; Eliason, S.R.; Albiston, C.R.; Mellema, V.
  • Walking the talk? What employers say versus what they do
    Pager, D.; Quillian, L.