LAUREN VAN BUREN—As an initial effort to help ex-offenders integrate into the workforce, the “Ban the Box” campaign emerged with the goal of removing from the job application the “check box” that asks if applicants have ever been convicted of a crime. Many activists believed this would increase diversity in the workforce by reducing the disproportionate hiring impact such questions have on African Americans and Hispanics.
Now, 24 states and more than 100 municipalities enforce various versions of ban the box laws. Employers, however, are still able to inquire about criminal history further along in the hiring process. The rationale is that employers are less likely to reject an applicant due to his or her criminal history once the employer has already determined the applicant would be a good fit for the company.
If the goal of the ban the box movement was simply to increase the likelihood that individuals with criminal records would obtain employment, evidence suggests that it is effective. However, if the goal is to diversify the workforce and close racial disparities in hiring, social science research suggests these laws are actually doing the opposite.
Ban the Name
In a large-scale study, researchers sent 15,000 fictitious applications to companies before and after the imposition of ban the box laws in New York and New Jersey. The first and last names on the applications were chosen to denote race—for example, “Terrell Washington” for black men and “Scott Weber” for white men—but otherwise the applications were identical. The researchers found that after the employers stopped asking about the criminal history of applicants, the racial gap in callbacks by employers substantially increased. Co-author of the study, Sonja Starr, explained that the study suggests employers have “wildly exaggerated impressions of how much more likely black male applicants are to have criminal records.”
Studies assessing biases in evaluating résumés are not uncommon. Similar studies outside of the ban the box context have demonstrated implicit gender biases in screening applicants. For example, over 100 individuals at academic institutions were asked to evaluate résumés that varied only in the name of the applicant. Based on the feedback of the decision-makers, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent than John, despite having the exact same qualifications and experience.
The results of the various studies assessing implicit biases prove that qualified applicants are oftentimes overlooked for the wrong reasons, even when a company takes affirmative steps to increase diversity. As some business owners and managers are beginning to understand, underlying assumptions and implicit biases are not only unfair to the candidate, but a bad practice for the business if the business inadvertently turns away the talent it needs.
Ban the Résumé
Despite access to a large number of applicants, hiring managers have confessed that 50 percent of new employees do not meet their employer’s expectations in the first 18 months of employment. Thus, implicit biases are not the only issues hiring managers need to combat—perhaps the current hiring strategies are simply inefficient and ineffective altogether.
Recognizing that the traditional résumé and interview approach to hiring wasn’t producing desired results, some companies have chosen to redact candidates’ names, addresses, and alma maters so that hiring managers form opinions based solely on the candidates’ work. In fact, companies including Bloomberg, Dolby, and the BBC have decided to forego the résumé process entirely. Instead, prospective hires spend several hours performing tasks similar to what they would do in their position at the company. Managers then receive a list of the top performers, who they can call to schedule an interview. When both parties are already confident that the candidate has proved his or her abilities, the focus remains on work product even after identities are revealed.
In terms of efficiency, this process actually reduces hiring time by almost 40 percent. This is because task-based hiring reduces the number of applicants since many applicants do not wish to put in the effort. According to an IBM spokesman, “sample projects have unearthed hires who have turned out to be top performers.” Importantly, “bosses say blind hiring reveals true talents and results in more diverse hires.”
Surely, ban the box imposes additional regulatory burdens on employers that seek to efficiently hire honest employees who won’t risk company productivity with a future arrest. But these characteristics, much like an applicant’s potential performance, are simply unobservable when screening traditional job applications. Perhaps blind hiring is a solution to increasing diversity while maintaining the integrity of a truly merit-based hiring process.
