After years of stagnation, labeling theory has recently gained new empirical support. Simultaneously, new policy initiatives have attempted to restructure criminal record stigma to reduce reintegration barriers, and subsequent recidivism, driven by labeling. For example, in a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) language policy, person-first terms (e.g., "person with a conviction") were substituted for crime-first terms (e.g., "offender"). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also issued guidelines to structure how decision-makers use criminal records. Unfortunately, little is currently known about the social construction and use of criminal record stigma or the potential effects of such policy changes. In the current study, we provide two unique empirical tests. In study 1, we examine the social construction of stigma by testing DOJ's language policy with experimental data from a nationally representative sample of American adults (N = 996). In study 2, we use a separate nationwide experiment (N = 1,540) to examine how the contextualization of criminal records influences social exclusion decisions. Across both studies, we find consistent evidence of a "mark of violence." The public perceives that individuals with violent convictions are the most likely to commit future crimes, and it is more supportive of excluding these individuals from employment. Crime-first terms exacerbate perceived recidivism risk for individuals with violent convictions.
Criminal background checks are increasingly being incorporated into hiring decisions by employers. Although originally uncompromising—almost anyone with a criminal record could be denied employment—court rulings and policy changes have forced criminal background checks to become more nuanced. One motivation for allowing more individuals with criminal records to work is to decrease recidivism and encourage desistance. In this article, we estimate the causal impact of receiving a clearance to work on subsequent arrests for individuals with criminal records who have been provisionally hired to work in certain nonlicensed health‐care jobs in New York State (N = 6,648). We employ an instrumental variable approach based on a substantive understanding of the state‐mandated criminal background check process. We examine age‐graded effects within this group of motivated individuals and differential effects by sex in the rapidly growing health‐care industry, which is typically dominated by women. Our estimated local average treatment effect indicates a 2.2‐percentage‐point decrease in the likelihood of a subsequent arrest in 1 year and a 4.2‐percentage‐point decrease over 3 years. We find meaningful variations by sex; men are 8.4 percentage points less likely to be arrested over the 3‐year period when cleared compared with a 2.4‐percentage‐point (and nonsignificant) effect for women. Older women in particular are driving the nonsignificant results for women.
Much prior research has examined the sources of individuals’ attitudes toward the application of punishment via the justice system. Some findings from this literature suggest that punitive attitudes are expressive, retributive, and closely connected to racial resentment. Other research, however, emphasizes that these sentiments are instrumental, utilitarian, and associated with the management of perceived risk. To date, little research has explored public attitudes regarding employment as a reentry barrier, and it is unclear which of these perspectives is more salient for understanding support for employers’ use of criminal records in hiring decision-making. Using survey data on a national sample of American adults ( N = 1,202), the current study finds stronger support for an instrumental model than an expressive model.
Decision makers such as employers and state occupational licensing officials are often encouraged or required to incorporate evidence of rehabilitation into hiring decisions when applicants have criminal records. Current policy movements at the local, state, and federal levels may increase the use of such individualized assessments. Yet little is known about which types of information these decision makers use, how they evaluate evidence, and how they ultimately make determinations. We examine a sample of 50 unarmed security guard licensing decisions in New York State using content analysis. We find that administrative law judges rely on a narrative framework to document whether applicants currently have a prosocial identity and merit licensure. Judges typically describe one of two prosocial identity narratives for successful applicants: The applicant demonstrates achieving meaningful change, or his or her criminal record represents an aberration. Two factors seem vital to these assessments: applicants’ postconviction trustworthiness, as demonstrated through good conduct or inferred through positive appraisals, and credible testimony. In narrative explanations, personal responsibility and adult milestones are often discussed, reflecting a judicial nod to the notion of a “transition to adulthood.” The results hold implications for scholars and policy makers examining employment barriers, stigma remediation, and collateral sanctions for individuals with criminal records.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.