Criminal Records, Positive Employment Credentials, and Race

• Author: Megan Denver,Samuel E. DeWitt
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0022427819886111
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Criminal Records,

Positive Employment

Credentials, and Race

Samuel E. DeWitt

1

and Megan Denver

2

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the impact of positive credentials on perceptions of

individuals with criminal recor ds and whether the effects of credentia ls

differ by the type of conviction or the criminal record holder’s race.

Methods: We present fictional job applicant details to a nationwide survey

of American adults (n¼5,822) using a factorial de sign. We manipulate

whether the job applicant is Black or White and has a criminal record or

not. Among those randomly assigned to have a criminal record, we also vary

the type of felony (violent or drug), whether they report a positive creden-

tial, and the type of credential (if applicable). Results: Among those with

criminal records, respondents viewed applicants with positive credentials

more favorably than those without credentials. In fact, a supportive

reference letter from a former employer mitigates most of the stigma

from a criminal record. The resul ts are consistent by applicant r ace as

well as criminal record type, and our employer respondents react

similarly to experimental conditions as compared to the overall sample.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that the inclusion of positive credentials

can help reduce criminal record stigma and aid in the normification process.

1

Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte,

NC, USA

2

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Samuel E. DeWitt, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North

Carolina, 9201 University City Blvd, Colvard Hall 5084, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA.

Email: sdewitt2@uncc.edu

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2020, Vol. 57(3) 333-368

ªThe Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022427819886111

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

Keywords

criminal records, employment, stigma, race/ethnicity, reentry

Introduction

A criminal record is a “deeply discrediting” mark that is socially created

and reinforced (Goffman 1963:3). A prevalent perception is that a criminal

record conveys that a person is dangerous, risky, and untrustworthy (Hirsch-

field and Piquero 2010; Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2007). In response, the

public and policymakers impose social inclusion restrictions, many of

which are formalized by legal proscription (Council of State Governments

2017). Formal consequences of a criminal record include restrictions on

civic rights, ineligibility for certain public assistance programs and employ-

ment or occupational licensing exclusions (Ewald 2012; Travis 2005;

Uggen and Manza 2002).

One of the most pervasive barriers involves employment. A recent com-

prehensive review of collateral consequences identified over 33,000 state

and federal laws restricting access to a job (United States Commission on

Civil Rights [USCCR] 2019). In addit ion to formalized laws, employer

concerns include safe work environments and legal liability if a crime is

committed on the job (Lageson, Vuolo, and Uggen 2015; Society for

Human Resources Management 2012). Such employment barriers can

impede the desistance process, while employment opportunities can reduce

recidivism (Denver, Siwach, and Bushway 2017; Uggen 2000). A key

concern is that rather than carefully linking restrictions to particular situa-

tions or types of criminal conduct, policymakers have started “piling on”

collateral consequences (Uggen and Stewart 2014:1872). As a national

commission recently concluded, unnecessary barriers “negatively [affect]

public safety” and professional license restrictions “hinder the chances for

and likelihood of rehabilitation for the formerly incarcerated person”

(USCCR 2019:133).

As a means of providing relief from the con sequences of a criminal

record, policymakers and researchers have moved in two main directions.

The first involves concealing criminal records. Concealment strategies

include prohibiting certain decisionmakers from observing criminal records

(sealing) or destroying the existence of the record (expungement). Goffman

(1963) refers to these types of actions as normalization: Actors are treating

people as if they did not have the stigmatizing attribute. However, such

policies are predicated upon unilateral control of criminal record

334 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 57(3)

information by a centralized bureaucracy. Although criminal justice agen-

cies are formally responsible for the creation of criminal records, their

dissemination is largely unregulated and open to the public. The prolifera-

tion of the Internet, accompanied by private companies that collect and

distribute criminal records (Bushway et al. 2007; Lageson and Maruna

2018), has caused some legal scholars to argue that criminal record con-

cealment “ignores the technological realities of the information age” (Love

2003:1726).

The second direction, criminal record contextualization, takes a different

approach. Rather than remove evidence of the existence of a criminal past,

individuals with criminal records are encouraged to obtain and report addi-

tional positive information about themselves or their criminal history. This

is consistent with another prominent stigma remediation tactic identified by

Goffman (1963): normification. Normification entails the stigmatized indi-

vidual presenting himself “as an ordinary person” while “not necessarily

making a secret of his failing” (p. 31). Modern criminal record contextua-

lization strategies can take manifold forms but typically fall under some

form of individualized assessment.

One method of using individualized assessments in practice is to enable

job applicants to provide both criminal records and positive credentials

upfront. At the core of a positive credential strategy is an acknowledgment

that stigma remediation must take into account the interests of both indi-

viduals with criminal records and those making important decisions about

them. By contextualizing the criminal record as just one piece of informa-

tion about the person, decisionmakers can more accurately assess the

“whole person” in their review (Lundquist, Pager, and Strader 2018:5). For

stigmatized populations, Goffman referred to positive pieces of information

as “disidentifiers.” The purpose of a disidentifier is not to firmly establish a

new identity for the stigmatized individual but to create ambiguity as to the

veracity of the label (i.e., “criminal”) cast upon him (Goffman 1963:44).

Little is known regarding the impact of disidentifiers in practice. In partic-

ular, there is a research gap regarding whether some positive credentials are

prioritized and viewed more favorably than others and how they interact

with applicant characteristics to impact opportunities for individuals with

criminal records.

Using a nationwide sample (n¼5,822) of American adults, the current

study focuses on how people react to competing types of information about

individuals with criminal records, using the employment context as our

study setting, to better understand the potential disi dentifying effects of

positive credentials. We are only aware of one project that examines the

DeWitt and Denver 335