Fair Chance Act failures? Employers’ hiring of people with criminal records

• Published date: 01 May 2024
• Author: Sharon S. Oselin,Justine G. M. Ross,Qingfang Wang,Wei Kang
• Date: 01 May 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12655

DOI: ./- .

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Fair Chance Act failures? Employers’ hiring of

people with criminal records

Sharon S. Oselin1Justine G. M. Ross1Qingfang Wang1

Wei K an g2

School of Public Policy, University of

California, Riverside, California, USA

Department of Geography and the

Environment, University of North Texas,

Denton, Texas, USA

Correspondence

Sharon S. Oselin, School of Public Policy,

University of California,  INTS,

Riverside, CA , USA.

Email: soselin@ucr.edu

Funding information

The John Randolph Haynes and Dora

Haynes Foundation, Grant/Award

Number: 

Abstract

Research summary: We examine the efficacy of the

California Fair Chance Act (CFCA) policy—legislative

stipulations regarding employers’ hiring of individuals

with criminal records—on practices and outcomes in

two Southern California counties during . We rely

on survey and experiment data with  hiring decision

makers to investigate employer and personal compli-

ance with the CFCA, whether applicant appeals affect

employers’ willingness to hire them, and heterogeneity

in treatment effects across firms and industries. Close

to % of hiring decision makers violate the CFCA by

obtaining background information before they extend

an offer, appeals have a minimal impact on hiring out-

comes, and firm-level characteristics continue to shape

hiring practices to some extent.

Policy implications: Although certain firms comply

with the relatively new CFCA, most employers violate

it by seeking applicant criminal background informa-

tion, a practice that has profound consequences for

those with criminal records as well as other disadvan-

taged groups. This finding underscores the discrepancy

between de jure and de facto policy practices. Bet-

ter statewide enforcement of the CFCA coupled with

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits

use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or

adaptations are made.

©  The Authors. Criminology & Public Policypublished by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Criminology.

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp 361

362 OSELIN  .

increased employer educational training could help

reform it and improve policy adherence. Given it is a

young policy, future research should continue to assess

the CFCA’s efficacy over time.

KEYWORDS

California Fair Chance Act, hiring practices, employment for the

justice-involved, policy

Estimates suggest that approximately one quarter of the American adult population possesses

a criminal record (Jacobs, ), a figure that contains a disproportionate number of indi-

viduals from minority groups (Uggen et al., ). Although scholars emphasize the various

factors that are integral to successful reentry—such as stable housing and supportive prosocial

relationships—employment is understood as central to post-incarceration reintegration and low-

ered recidivism (Apel & Horney, ;Sampson & Laub, ). Employment not only contributes

to one’s financial stability but also enhances self-worth and can lead to improved social relation-

ships (Western, ). The rub is that stable, well-paying jobs, which are often greatly desiredby

those with records, too frequently remain elusive.

Past researchon reentry and employment documents an array of institutional and societal barri-

ers that can thwart job attainmentfor this population, including statistical discrimination, stigma,

liability concerns, repetition risk, and licensure exclusions (Smith & Broege, ; Sugie et al.,

; Vuolo et al., ). As such, employer-based concerns fuel the increasingly widespread use

of background checks to screen out justice-involved applicants (Uggen et al., ). Applicants,

who are keenly awareof the negative stereotypes about them, enact various impression and stigma

management strategies to overcome employer hiring aversion,such as voluntarily disclosing their

past criminal records or offering appeals (Goodman, ). Certain studies find these efforts can

enhance employment outcomes (Heydon & Naylor,), yet this places a tremendous burden on

the applicant to cultivate a changed impression among hiring decision makers.

Employment policies, in contrast, have potentialto level the employment playing field through-

out the hiring process. To begin to tackle long-standing discrimination against people with

records, many states have passed legislation over the past few decades that offers greateremploy-

ment protection for this population (National Employment Law Project[NELP], ; Von Bergen

& Bressler, ). The most common manifestation is found in Ban the Box(BTB) policies, which

primarily eliminate questions about one’s criminal history from the application. Many BTB poli-

cies apply solely to public employers, but a growing number of states include both the private

and public realms (NELP, ). Building upon BTB, some states enacted more stringent leg-

islation that adopts U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)-recommended

“fair chance” employment guidelines to further advance job prospects for the justice-involved.

Passing one of the most expansive laws in the country in , California enacted the Califor-

nia Fair Chance Act (CFCA) for public and private employers, which includes () “Banning

the Box,” () prohibiting employers from conducting background checks until after a condi-

tional offer of employment is made, () mandating an individualized assessment if a record

is uncovered, and () allowing applicants to appeal rescinded employment offers due to past

crimes. To date, this is the strongest state law in the United States regulating hiring practices for