The first time I heard the term “ban the box,” I thought it might be the catchphrase of activists campaigning against the use of solitary confinement in prisons. But while curbing the use of solitary is a laudable goal, and one shared by most of those who support “banning the box,” the term has become a rallying cry for those seeking to help offenders once they leave prison.
“Ban the box” is a campaign to end the requirement that job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record. On Monday, President Obama announced a new directive instructing the Office of Personnel Management to delay criminal background checks for all federal and federally contracted jobs until later in the application process.
Including the box in job applications seems like a convenient way for employers to screen out potential criminals. But allowing it in the early stages of the job application process often causes employers to discriminate against former offenders before knowing anything more about them, such as their job credentials, or their criminal history, such as what the crime was and how long ago it occurred.
Banning the box wouldn’t prevent employers from learning about the past criminal history of an applicant. It would simply delay when that information is received, except for high security positions.
One recent study found that when an employer learns of an applicant’s criminal record, it can reduce the employer’s interested in him by 50 percent (60 percent for blacks and 30 percent for whites).
“Ban the box” has long been supported by liberal criminal justice reform advocates. But more and more conservatives and libertarians are embracing the idea too. In April, Koch Industries Inc. announced that it will stop asking job applicants whether they’ve ever been convicted of a crime.
Eighteen states have enacted “ban the box” legislation, including states governed by Republican presidential hopefuls. Chris Christie signed legislation banning the box in 2014. John Kasich did the same thing in Ohio earlier this year. As governor of Florida, Jeb Bush signed an executive order promoting the hiring of ex-offenders. His campaign told the Washington Examiner that he supports banning the box. Meanwhile, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has introduced federal legislation to seal the criminal records of non-violent offenders.
Holly Harris, executive director of the U.S. Justice Action Network, whose mission is to bring together progressives, conservatives and libertarians to enact justice reform, told the Examiner that she is “very pleased” with Obama’s directive, saying that it “underscores the bipartisan nature of these types of reforms.”
Marc Levin, policy director for Right on Crime, which bills itself as the “one-stop source for conservative ideas on criminal justice,” told the Examiner that his group is “fine” with banning the box for government employees, “excluding of course high security positions.” Levin added that Right on Crime does not “support government mandates on the private sector but instead back policies that allow records to be sealed in appropriate cases.”
Levin said that Right on Crime has spearheaded several state laws that allow some nonviolent offenders to obtain an order or nondisclosure. Ideally, he said, nonviolent offenders would not even have a criminal record to begin with if they put through pretrial diversionary programs instead of being convicted of a crime and imprisoned. “Not only does this avoid creating a scarlet letter, it provides a positive incentive for the person to do what is necessary to get back on the right track,” he said.
The “ban the box” campaign is part of a broader movement to place more emphasis on rehabilitating criminals and helping them to reintegrate into society after they’ve paid their debt.
There are an estimated 14 million ex-offenders of working age in the U.S. When they don’t have decent job prospects, many end up going back to committing crimes and then back to prison. Harris emphasized that “banning the box” will ultimately reduce recidivism, noting that ex-offenders work nine fewer weeks a year and earn 40 percent less than their peers.Conservatives should see [banning the box] as a way to remove government obstacles, to get government out of the way and get people back to work,” Harris said. “That’s very conservative.”
Daniel Allott is deputy commentary editor for the Washington Examiner
