IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/25-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Revisiting the Unintended Consequences of Ban the Box

Author

Listed:
  • Anne M. Burton
  • David N. Wasser

Abstract

Ban-the-Box (BTB) policies intend to help formerly incarcerated individuals find employment by delaying when employers can ask about criminal records. We revisit the finding in Doleac and Hansen (2020) that BTB causes statistical discrimination against minority men. We correct miscoded BTB laws and show that estimates from the Current Population Survey (CPS) remain quantitatively similar, while those from the American Community Survey (ACS) now fail to reject the null hypothesis of no effect of BTB on employment. In contrast to the published estimates, these ACS results are statistically significantly different from the CPS results, indicating a lack of robustness across datasets. We do not find evidence that these differences are due to sample composition or survey weights. There is limited evidence that these divergent results are explained by the different frequencies of these surveys. Differences in sample sizes may also lead to different estimates; the ACS has a much larger sample and more statistical power to detect effects near the corrected CPS estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne M. Burton & David N. Wasser, 2025. "Revisiting the Unintended Consequences of Ban the Box," Working Papers 25-58, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:25-58
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/2025/adrm/ces/CES-WP-25-58.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2025
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Shoag & Stan Veuger, 2021. "Ban-the-Box Measures Help High-Crime Neighborhoods," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(1), pages 85-105.
    2. Alan B. Krueger & Alexandre Mas & Xiaotong Niu, 2017. "The Evolution of Rotation Group Bias: Will the Real Unemployment Rate Please Stand Up?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(2), pages 258-264, May.
    3. David H. Autor & David Scarborough, 2008. "Does Job Testing Harm Minority Workers? Evidence from Retail Establishments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(1), pages 219-277.
    4. Evan K. Rose, 2021. "Does Banning the Box Help Ex-Offenders Get Jobs? Evaluating the Effects of a Prominent Example," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 79-113.
    5. Yang, Crystal S., 2017. "Local labor markets and criminal recidivism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 16-29.
    6. Amanda Agan & Sonja Starr, 2018. "Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Racial Discrimination: A Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 191-235.
    7. Jennifer L. Doleac & Benjamin Hansen, 2020. "The Unintended Consequences of “Ban the Box”: Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories Are Hidden," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 321-374.
    8. Abigail Wozniak, 2015. "Discrimination and the Effects of Drug Testing on Black Employment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(3), pages 548-566, July.
    9. Douglas L. Miller, 2023. "An Introductory Guide to Event Study Models," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 37(2), pages 203-230, Spring.
    10. Shoag, Daniel & Veuger, Stan, 2016. "No Woman No Crime: Ban the Box, Employment, and Upskilling," Working Paper Series 16-015, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Holzer, Harry J & Raphael, Steven & Stoll, Michael A, 2006. "Perceived Criminality, Criminal Background Checks, and the Racial Hiring Practices of Employers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(2), pages 451-480, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joshua M. Congdon-Hohman, 2018. "The persistent labor market effects of a criminal conviction and �Ban the Box� reforms," Working Papers 1808, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    2. Antonella Mancino, M., 2025. "Rehabilitating futures: Assessing the effects of correctional employment-focused programs on recidivism and employment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Mitchell Hoffman & Christopher T. Stanton, 2024. "People, Practices, and Productivity: A Review of New Advances in Personnel Economics," NBER Working Papers 32849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Lundberg, Alexander & Mungan, Murat, 2022. "The effect of evidentiary rules on conviction rates," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 563-576.
    5. Mocanu, Tatiana, 2024. "Designing Gender Equity: Evidence from Hiring Practices," IZA Discussion Papers 17480, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Jennifer L. Doleac & Benjamin Hansen, 2016. "Does “Ban the Box” Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers? Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories are Hidden," NBER Working Papers 22469, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Joanna N. Lahey & Douglas R. Oxley, 2021. "Discrimination at the Intersection of Age, Race, and Gender: Evidence from an Eye‐Tracking Experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(4), pages 1083-1119, September.
    8. Hjalmarsson, Randi & Machin, Stephen & Pinotti, Paolo, 2024. "Crime and the labor market," Handbook of Labor Economics,, Elsevier.
    9. Bastien Michel & Camille Hémet, 2022. "Custodial versus non-custodial sentences: Long-run evidence from an anticipated reform," PSE Working Papers halshs-03899897, HAL.
    10. David Card & Fabrizio Colella & Rafael Lalive, 2025. "Gender Preferences in Job Vacancies and Workplace Gender Diversity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 92(4), pages 2437-2471.
    11. Amanda Y. Agan & Michael D. Makowsky, 2023. "The Minimum Wage, EITC, and Criminal Recidivism," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(5), pages 1712-1751.
    12. Laura Blattner & Scott Nelson, 2021. "How Costly is Noise? Data and Disparities in Consumer Credit," Papers 2105.07554, arXiv.org.
    13. Robert Clifford & Daniel Shoag, 2016. "“No more credit score”: employer credit check bans and signal substitution," Working Papers 16-10, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    14. Conrad Miller, 2017. "The Persistent Effect of Temporary Affirmative Action," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 152-190, July.
    15. Darolia, Rajeev & Mueser, Peter & Cronin, Jacob, 2021. "Labor market returns to a prison GED," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    16. Dylan Minor & Nicola Persico & Deborah M. Weiss, 2018. "Criminal background and job performance," IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-49, December.
    17. Christopher R. Bollinger & Aaron Yelowitz, 2021. "Targeting intensive job assistance to ex‐offenders by the nature of offense: Results from a randomized control trial," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 1308-1327, July.
    18. Clifford, Robert & Shoag, Daniel, 2016. ""No More Credit Score": Emplyer Credit Check Bans and Signal Substitution," Working Paper Series 16-008, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    19. Ballance, Joshua & Clifford, Robert & Shoag, Daniel, 2020. "“No more credit score”: Employer credit check bans and signal substitution," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    20. Allison Dwyer Emory, 2019. "Unintended Consequences: Protective State Policies and the Employment of Fathers with Criminal Records," Working Papers wp19-04-ff, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing..

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:25-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.