Recent research efforts have documented resistance from employers in hiring individuals with criminal records. In response, advocates and policymakers have implemented strategies ranging from grassroots movements that delay criminal record inquiries to federal guidance that directs decision makers to conduct “individualized assessments.” However, it is not clear precisely what information employers actually are (or should be) seeking when they conduct criminal background checks. Furthermore, there may be a catch-22: while employment might promote desistance, applicants may need to demonstrate that they do not pose an undue risk before being able to secure a job or license (Maruna 2009). Since desistance involves maintained absence from crime, the policy dilemma is how and when decision makers can effectively “target the absence.”
The current dissertation addresses a lack of research on actual criminal background check decision making practices with a focus on two key components of individualized assessments: the amount of time since last offense and rehabilitation efforts. First, I examine the impact of being cleared to work due to a “10 years since last conviction” decision guideline, a redemption strategy decision makers have derived from empirical research, on employment and recidivism outcomes using a sample of individuals with criminal records who are provisionally hired to work in certain healthcare jobs. After demonstrating that those cleared to work due to the 10 year guideline experience employment improvements—and for men, reductions in subsequent arrests—I consider rehabilitation efforts as an alternative (and potentially expedited) redemption strategy. I examine written judicial decisions for occupational licenses to develop a framework for how decision makers balance “rehabilitation” and “risk.” Returning to the healthcare data, I then test whether decision makers in a formalized risk assessment context seek indicators of identity or assess risk when presented with evidence of rehabilitation.
Throughout the dissertation I consider competing notions of risk and identity assessment, and I find consistent evidence of decision makers searching for identity constructs—rather than formalized indicators of risk—when incorporating evidence of rehabilitation into decisions. Furthermore, decision makers differentiate between identity change and “aberrations” (i.e., mistakes that do not represent a person’s underlying identity). I also find disconnects between decisions involving evidence of rehabilitation and recidivism outcomes; individuals with successful evidence packages have similar subsequent arrest levels as those who are unsuccessful (and therefore, denied clearance to work). The findings indicate certain advantages of being cleared to work when a time since last conviction guideline is in place, while also suggesting the need for further developments in identity theory and additional research on the link between decision processes and outcome data in non-criminal justice settings. (Publisher abstract provided.)