Study provides guidance on hiring ex-cons
June 22, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Assessing the right candidate, Background checks, In This Week's E-Newsletter, Latest News & Views
It’s a common HR dilemma: How much should a criminal record affect a hiring decision?
On one hand, most companies will find it hard to trust someone who’s been convicted of any crime. But if someone has the right skills and experience, should a non-job-related offense from several years prior change your mind?
The EEOC warns against using blanket policies against hiring candidates with criminal records, because minorities are convicted of crimes at higher rates than whites.
So what’s the middle ground? A new study by Carnegie Melon says convictions that are at least five years old pose little threat in most cases.
The study looked at the records of more than 88,000 convicts in New York who committed first-time offenses in 1980. Most committed new crimes within the first five years after their arrest. But those who stayed clean for five years had the same risk of arrest as the general population in the same age group.
That’s not to say once five years pass, you should ignore conviction information. But the study’s data, along with a case-specific analysis of the severity of an offense and how it relates to the job, could help companies answer a tough question.
Tags: convictions, criminal record, ex-cons
June 25th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
How does workplace safety play into this? If I hire convict that has stayed clean for five years and he then assaults a coworker, am I liable? We have to remember that prison is not rehabilitation. Would i hire a convict? Yes, but it would depend on the conviction and time since parole. Is this fair? Probably not, but the government and EEOC are not going to pick up the tab if I get sued for placing someone at risk for hiring a convict.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
This article says practically nothing. It’s like a collection of random thoughts that gives no real advice or insight. I am left with more questions than answers on this one.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Non-work related is the key, depending on how you define it. Assault? Probably future trouble. Stealing at TV or petty shoplifting? Possible. JZ, the liability is the same as with anyone else so long as the offense was taken into consideration with the placing, environment, risk etc.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I disagree with Ross’ comment since an assault charge coul dmean someone pushing someone or having a fight at age 18 even if provoked. That doesn’t mean that with maturity, no subsequent issues and if the assault was not serious that the person shouldn’t be given a fair shake. I know someone who had a record 9 years previously when going through a divorce and was charged with assault even though the ex-spouse dropped the charges and has had a strong work record. When his employer found out, he was laid off after 16 years of successful employment. Now it is impossible to find work since you have to disclose the charge since it is under 10 years.