Ban the Box

There is mixed evidence about the effects of Ban the Box (BTB) laws on employment for individuals with criminal convictions across the public and private sectors (Burton 2025, Bullman 2025). Some studies show positive effects, increasing callbacks and the likelihood of employment or hiring for those previously convicted for a crime (Craigie 2020, Flake 2019, Urban-Stacy 2017). However, others show no impact on hiring (Rose 2021) or suggest reductions in employment among those with criminal records (FRB-Jackson 2017). There is also mixed evidence on whether there are unintended consequences for individuals without criminal records, with studies showing no impact, positive, and negative effects (Burton 2025, Kim 2025, Kaestner 2024, Craigie 2020, Doleac 2020, Shoag 2021).

Impacts among intended populations. Some studies show positive effects, including increased likelihood of public sector employment for individuals with criminal records nationwide (Craigie 2020) and increased percentages of such individuals hired following BTB implementation in Washington, D.C. and Durham County, NC (Urban-Stacy 2017). However, an analysis of BTB laws in Seattle found no significant employment effects (Rose 2021), and a study of Massachusetts’s Criminal Offender Record Information Reform (CORI), which includes a BTB provision and record access reform, suggests it may have led to reductions in employment among those with criminal records (FRB-Jackson 2017). Audit studies in Chicago, and New York and New Jersey suggest that BTB may increase employer call backs to individuals with criminal records (Flake 2019, Agan 2018); however, in the New York and New Jersey study there were significant decreases in call backs to Black men without criminal records, offsetting any gains to Black men with records (Agan 2018).

Potential unintended consequences. The finding from the New York and New Jersey audit study suggested some employers may be influenced by implicit bias, consciously or unconsciously screening out “Black sounding” names due to assumptions that such individuals are more likely to have a criminal background (Agan 2017). This finding has prompted other studies to look for such unintended consequences in BTB implementation. One nationwide study of existing BTB laws, which apply mainly to public employers but include some that apply to private employers as well, suggests they may increase employment among older men who are Black without a college degree and younger women who are Black with a college degree, but may also decrease hiring among young men who are Black or Hispanic who did not finish high school or get a GED (Doleac 2020). Another study suggests BTB may increase employment of residents of high crime neighborhoods, particularly in public sector and low wage jobs (Shoag 2021).

Another study looked at both the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the larger American Community Survey (ACS) and found effects on individuals without records who are minorities to be more ambiguous, with CPS data suggesting there were harms to such workers while ACS data found none; differences in results may be due to different frequencies of the surveys (Burton 2025). Another nationwide study using ACS data found an initial increase in the Black-White employment gap, however it returned to its previous level within three years and narrowed from there (Kim 2025). Nationwide data that exclusively examined public sector BTB laws indicates no change in the likelihood of public sector employment of young, low-skilled males from racialized backgrounds following BTB implementation (Craigie 2020), and another, including more private sector employers, saw no significant employment effects for young men of any race with less than a 4 year degree (Kaestner 2024). An older study suggests that employers who conduct background checks appear more likely to hire Black men than employers that do not, particularly employers averse to hiring individuals with criminal records (Holzer 2006).

Best practices. Studies looking at more comprehensive BTB policies suggest such laws may reduce recidivism (FRB-Jackson 2017, D'Alessio 2015). Experts suggest that BTB should be implemented as a part of a comprehensive approach, including outreach about BTB to employers and individuals with records, structured disclosure processes, enhanced enforcement mechanisms for equal employment violations, and record-sealing or expungement initiatives (Bullman 2025, Herring 2022, Schneider 2022, Urban-Stacy 2017). Experts also suggest combining limits on criminal record questions with reductions in liability of negligent hiring to provide protection to employers with liability concerns (Agan 2017), and implementing BTB in college admissions processes, given evidence that increasing access to education appears to reduce subsequent criminal behavior (Brookings-Scott-Clayton 2017).

It is unclear what effects of Ban the Box (BTB) laws on disparities in employment for those with criminal records, who are disproportionately from minoritized groups and low income backgrounds (Burton 2025). Some studies have found unintended employment effects on individuals without a criminal record, but that evidence is mixed, suggesting negative, neutral, and in some cases positive impacts for men who are Black and Hispanic, with impacts varying depending on age, education level or neighborhood (Burton 2025). More research is needed to understand effects of BTB laws for both individuals with criminal convictions, and more broadly for populations who have been historically disadvantaged and underemployed (Bullman 2025).

Overall, people who are Black or Hispanic are disproportionately arrested and subsequently convicted, leading to higher rates of incarceration (NASEM 2014). Individuals with criminal records struggle to secure employment, housing, and financial security upon release because of interrupted work histories, lack of skill development, difficulty obtaining necessary credentials or degrees, and employer reluctance to hire individuals with criminal records, often based on assumptions of risk and liability (Bullman 2025).

A recent study of national data suggests BTB implementation may be associated with an initial increase in the Black-White employment gap, but that returned to its previous level within three years, and narrowed from there (Kim 2025). However, older studies found small negative effects on the employment of young men who are Black and Hispanic with less than a college degree, but small positive effects for college educated older men who are Black and women (Doleac 2020). Later studies that expanded the timeframe studied (Kaestner 2024) and employed larger more robust datasets (Burton 2025) found those effects likely to be negligible. Another study comparing the impacts of BTB law implementation in high-crime neighborhoods and low-crime neighborhoods suggests BTB may increase employment of residents of high crime neighborhoods, particularly older black men with low skill levels (Shoag 2021), but it may decrease employment among women in those neighborhoods (Shoag 2016).

Researchers suggest that requiring job applications to be name and address blind, increasing regulation against equal employment violators, outreach to employers and individuals with records about BTB, and expungement of criminal record history may help avoid potential unintended consequences for young minority men without criminal records (Urban-Stacy 2017).

Racist beliefs have been used to justify American policing, behavior criminalization, and incarceration since the 1700s (Leland 2022). After the passage of the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery except as punishment for a crime (US Const. XIII) the Black codes, laws designed to limit the freedom of Black Americans and create a supply of prison labor, were passed (History-Black codes). The 1960s brought federal government involvement in criminal justice and law enforcement, with the Johnson Administration’s “war on crime” leading to increasingly harsh and punitive sentencing laws alongside aggressive policing (NASEM 2014). Politicians used racially coded language to link crime with minority communities and Black Americans in particular (NASEM 2014). Between 1970 and 2000, U.S. incarceration increased by 400% and by 2009, 1,553,574 individuals were imprisoned (Vera-Mass incarceration causes). Today the prison industry, including private prisons and other companies that benefit from large prison populations, spends substantial resources lobbying for punitive laws and fewer regulations of prison labor (NASEM 2014). Mass incarceration today disproportionately harms people who are Black, other racially minoritized groups, and those living in poverty (Vera-Mass incarceration statistics).

The U.S. justice system was designed to deter crime through aversive control and social isolation, not to support socially significant behavior change and reinforce prosocial behavior (Leland 2022). Given the history of mass incarceration and the discriminatory hiring practices individuals face following release from prison, policy instruments are needed to support those who were previously incarcerated (Bullman 2025). Half of individuals released from prison are reincarcerated within three years (OPRE-Redcross 2012). Even without the burden of a criminal record, workers who are Black and Hispanic are more likely to experience a higher rate of unemployment compared to workers who are white. This is particularly true during an economic crisis, and Black and Hispanic workers are more likely to experience a slower return to pre-crisis unemployment levels during economic recoveries (CBPP-Meyer 2021). As of December 2025, the unemployment rate for workers who are Black was at 7.5% (USBLS-Employment Data 2026a) and 4.9% for workers who are Hispanic (USBLS-Employment Data 2026), compared to 3.8% for those who are white (USBLS-Employment Data 2026a).

• Who in your community has been involved in the justice system? What resources and partnerships are needed to provide individuals who are or were formerly involved in the justice system with structured support after incarceration?
• What barriers do individuals involved in the justice system face to living a healthy life? What supports besides employment protections do they need?
• What additional protections or mandates can policies like Ban the Box include to better support their target population and improve long-term outcomes?
• What underlying conditions contribute to training and skills gaps in your community? What other strategies can be implemented to address those underlying conditions?

As of 2021, 37 states over 150 local city and county governments have passed Ban the Box (BTB) legislation, and over four-fifths of the U.S. population lives in a jurisdiction covered by BTB. Fifteen states and 22 localities have laws that also include private employers (NELP-Avery 2021). Many large private employers, such as Walmart, Target, and Home Depot, have voluntarily adopted BTB, along with some hospitals (Urban-Stacy 2017).

AIC-Ban the Box - All-In Cities, an Initiative of PolicyLink. All-In Cities Policy Toolkit: Ban the box/fair chance hiring.

NELP-Fair Chance Hiring for Employers - National Employment Law Project (NELP). (n.d.). Fair chance hiring resources for employers. Retrieved April 9, 2026.

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Agan 2017* - Agan A. Increasing employment of people with records: Policy challenges in the era of ban the box. Criminology & Public Policy. 2017;16(1):177-185.

Agan 2018* - Agan A, Starr S. Ban the box, criminal records, and racial discrimination: A field experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2018;133(1):191-235.

Brookings-Scott-Clayton 2017 - Scott-Clayton J. Thinking "beyond the box": The use of criminal record in college admissions. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution; 2017.

Bullman 2025 - Bullman, D. (2025). Ban the Box and employment equity: Examining policy effectiveness and pathways to fair hiring.Journal of Community Justice, 34(2).

Burton 2025* - Burton, A. M., & Wasser, D. N. (2025). Revisiting the unintended consequences of Ban the Box. Journal of Public Economics, 250, 105473.

CBPP-Emsellem 2015 - Emsellem M, Ziedenberg J. Strategies for full employment through reform of the criminal justice system. Center on Budget and Policy Priorites (CBPP); 2015.

CBPP-Meyer 2021 - Meyer BL. Subsidized employment: A proven strategy to aid an equitable economic recovery. Washington, D.C.: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP); 2021.

Craigie 2020* - Craigie, T. (2020). Ban the Box, convictions, and public employment. Economic Inquiry, 58(1), 425–445.

D'Alessio 2015* - D’Alessio SJ, Stolzenberg L, Flexon JL. The effect of Hawaii’s ban the box law on repeat offending. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2015;40(2):336-352.

Denver 2017* - Denver M, Pickett JT, Bushway SD. Criminal records and employment: A survey of experiences and attitudes in the United States. Justice Quarterly. 2017.

Doleac 2020 - Doleac, J. L., & Hansen, B. (2020). The unintended consequences of “Ban the Box”: Statistical discrimination and employment outcomes when criminal histories are hidden. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(2), 321–374.

Flake 2019 - Flake, D. F. (2019). Do ban-the-box laws really work. Iowa Law Review, 104, 1079. Retrieved April 9, 2026.

FRB-Jackson 2017 - Jackson O, Sullivan R, Zhao B. Reintegrating the ex-offender population in the U.S. labor market: Lessons from the CORI reform in Massachusetts. New England Public Policy Center, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. 2017: Research report 17-1.

Herring 2022 - Herring, C. & Smith, S. S. (2022, March). The limits of Ban-the-Box legislation. Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Policy Brief. Retrieved April 9, 2026.

History-Black codes - History.com. (2023, March 29). Black codes.

Holzer 2006* - Holzer HJ, Raphael S, Stoll MA. Perceived criminality, criminal background checks, and the racial hiring practices of employers. The Journal of Law and Economics. 2006;49(2):451-480.

Kaestner 2024* - Kaestner, R., & Wang, X. (2024). Ban-the-Box laws: Fair and effective? International Review of Law and Economics, 78, 106192.

Kim 2025 - Kim, K. (2025). Information delay in hiring: Ban-the-Box and time-varying treatment effects. SSRN.

Leland 2022 - Leland, W., & Stockwell, A. (2022). Anti-oppressive restorative justice: Behavior analysis in alternatives to policing. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(4), 1232–1236.

NASEM 2014 - National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academies Press.

NELP-Avery 2021 - Avery, B., & Lu, H. (2021, October 1). Ban the box: U.S. cities, counties, and states adopt fair hiring policies. National Employment Law Project (NELP). Retrieved April 9, 2026.

OPRE-Redcross 2012 - Redcross C, Millenky M, Rudd T, Levshin V. More than a job: Final results from the evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) transitional jobs program. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS); 2012.

Rose 2021* - Rose, E. K. (2021). Does banning the box help ex-offenders get jobs? Evaluating the effects of a prominent example.Journal of Labor Economics, 39(1), 79–113.

Schneider 2022* - Schneider, L. E., Vuolo, M., Lageson, S. E., & Uggen, C. (2022). Before and after Ban the Box: Who complies with anti-discrimination law? Law & Social Inquiry, 47(3), 749–782.

Shoag 2016 - Shoag D, Veuger S. No woman no crime: Ban the box, employment, and upskilling. Harvard Kennedy School. 2016: Working Paper 16-015.

Shoag 2021* - Shoag, D., & Veuger, S. (2021). Ban-the-Box measures help high-crime neighborhoods. The Journal of Law and Economics, 64(1), 85–105.

Urban-Stacy 2017 - Stacy C, Cohen M. Ban the box and racial discrimination: A review of the evidence and policy recommendations. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; 2017.

US Const. XIII - U.S. Const. amend. XIII.

USBLS-Employment Data 2026 - U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). (2026, March 6). Table A-3: Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age [Data table]. Retrieved April 9, 2026.

USBLS-Employment Data 2026a - U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). (2026, February 11). Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age [Data table]. Retrieved April 9, 2026.

Vera-Mass incarceration causes - Vera Institute of Justice. Causes of mass incarceration. Retrieved October 22, 2024.

Vera-Mass incarceration statistics - Vera Institute of Justice. Incarceration statistics. Retrieved October 22, 2024.