The Impact of a Multiple Conviction Record on Hiring Outcomes

Abstract

The objective of the current study was to examine the impact of a multiple conviction criminal record with varying crime types on hiring outcomes. An experimental correspondence audit was used to achieve this objective. The results showed that those with multiple conviction records and varying crime types received significantly fewer callbacks for interviews than those with no record. While the callback point estimates for those with this type of criminal history were not as low as expected, their statistically significant differences from those with no record were consistent with the bulk of previous research. The results also indicated the continued presence of racial discrimination in hiring practices as equally qualified African American applicants received significantly fewer callbacks than White applicants.

The Effectiveness of Certificates of Relief: A Correspondence Audit of Hiring Outcomes

“…Because of the design of the between-subjects correspondence audit, it was possible to analyze the impact of a multiple conviction record on employment outcomes compared to one with no record. The results of that comparison are presented in Leasure and Kaminski (2021).…”

Virtual Reality Job Interview Training for Adults Receiving Prison-Based Employment Services: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility and Initial Effectiveness Trial

“…In terms of real-world outcomes, SAU + VR-JIT had a higher unadjusted rate of obtaining competitive and integrated employment by 6-month follow-up compared with SAU (82.1% vs. 68.8%, p = .15), but the finding did not obtain significance. However, participants randomized to SAU + VR-JIT had greater odds of obtaining competitive employment (OR = 7.4, p = .04) after adjusting for factors associated with obtaining employment among justice-involved adults (e.g., race, psychological distress, time served in prison [or jail], violent crime committed; Bushway et al, 2007; Decker et al, 2015; Holzer et al, 2006; Leasure & Kaminski, 2020; Metcalf et al, 2001; Ramakers et al, 2014; Seim & Harding, 2020; Turney et al, 2013). These results are consistent with recent effectiveness studies of VR-JIT (Smith, Sherwood, et al, 2021; Smith, Sherwood, et al, 2022; Smith, Smith, et al, 2021; Smith, Smith, et al, 2022) and suggest a fully powered RCT evaluating VR-JIT within prison-based vocational services is warranted.…”

“…Specifically, we examined whether there was a significant group-by-time interaction and generated partial eta-squared ( η normalp 2 ) effect sizes. We included the following covariates in the RM-ANOVA models given their prior associations with interviewing and employment: criminal justice history (e.g., time served in prison [or jail], arrest count, and having committed a violent crime as a proxy for risk), age at release, psychological distress, and race (Bushway et al, 2007; Decker et al, 2015; Holzer et al, 2006; Leasure & Kaminski, 2020; Metcalf et al, 2001; Ramakers et al, 2014; Seim & Harding, 2020; Turney et al, 2013). Also, 56.3% of the SAU group and 42.9% of the SAU + VR-JIT group received job offers between pretest and posttest from community employers due to the SAU model at the Vocational Villages.…”

Degrees of difference: Do college credentials earned behind bars improve labor market outcomes?

“…Recent research has begun to investigate whether positive credentials-such as letters of recommendation, state-sanctioned certificates of rehabilitation, or trade certifications-can improve hiring outcomes for this population by neutralizing stigma associated with the negative criminal credential. Notable research in this area includes several audit studies in which researchers apply to real jobs as fictional applicants with criminal records and varying positive credentials (Cundiff, 2016;Decker et al, 2015;Leasure & Andersen, 2016, 2020Leasure & Kaminski, 2021;Lindsay, 2021;Ortiz, 2014), experimental surveys in which respondents are asked to make hypothetical hiring decisions about applicants with varying positive credentials (Cullen et al, 2023;Denver & DeWitt, 2023;DeWitt & Denver, 2020;Reich, 2017;Santos et al, 2023), and interviews with employers (Fahey et al, 2006). Initial evidence supporting the ability of positive credentials to improve hiring outcomes is mixed, although employer recommendations and positive work histories have shown particular promise (Cullen et al, 2023;Denver, 2020;DeWitt & Denver, 2020;Santos et al, 2023).…”