Recent actions at Yale University have highlighted the next evolution in banning the question of criminal history on applications and students at Yale are looking to University Administration to begin the process. Student leaders become business leaders and ban-the-box policies, as an example, may become normalized through activism and exposure, but a best practice that must be learned and normalized is working with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency.

Student leaders are beginning to take on the question of Ban-the-Box for College and University applications. Banning the box essentially eliminates the question of criminal history and potentially levels the playing field for those with a criminal background record when it comes to being accepted into an institution of higher learning.

From UPressOnline.com on April 7, 2021:

Anyone who has filled out a university application may recall having to answer a question about their criminal history. Failure to answer these types of questions can delay application processing and a prospective student’s answer can result in a disciplinary hold or rejection.

Ban the Box at FAU is an organization working to remove questions regarding criminal history from FAU’s and other university and college admission applications. ^{upressonline.com/2021/04/ban-the-box-town-hall-discusses-removing-criminal-history-application-questions/}

At Yale University in Connecticut, efforts are underway to ban-the-box on Yale’s admission applications but no longer on the Common Application widely used in higher education.

From Yale Daily News on April 1, 2021:

During the 2019-2020 admissions cycle, the Common Application permanently removed its criminal history question. However, Yale still includes a criminal history question in the Yale-specific section of the Common Application. The question asks applicants, “Have you ever been convicted of, or pled guilty or no contest to, a misdemeanor or felony, or are there any criminal charges pending against you?” ^{yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/04/01/justice-impact-movement-ycc-call-on-yale-to-ban-the-box-in-admissions/}

Ban-the-Box laws across the country affecting employment applications have been occurring for many years now but removing the box on higher education institutes like Colleges and Universities is a much newer phenomenon. The mentality that criminal background records can become a huge obstacle for people to get jobs also exists for the same kind of people to get accepted to a College or University. As public perception in the USA has been changing more and more people understand that getting these kind of people employed or enrolled at a place of higher learning is better for the community at large and also helps with avoiding recidivism.

In a guest column at the Yale Daily News, Elizabeth Cordova clearly expresses the reason behind Ban-the-Box for Colleges and Universities.

From Yale Daily News on March 28, 2021:

“So pervasive is the racial inequality in the criminal justice system, it is impossible for the inquiry and usage of criminal justice information in college applications to be a race-neutral practice” states a joint report from the Justice Impact Movement, also known as JIM, and Yale College Council. People with a history of system involvement are three times less likely to finish a college application after starting than those without, all because of a single question asking about their past. Most of these prospective students belong to nonwhite minorities, feeding the issue of skewed demographics in higher education. JIM, a subgroup within the Yale Undergraduate Prison Project, encourages institutions of higher education to “ban the box” and promote a fairer system in the U.S. We want to break down the barriers to higher education for justice-impacted individuals. Such change starts with a new bill in the Connecticut General Assembly. ^{yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/03/28/cordova-pushing-to-ban-the-box/}

Ban-the-box related laws continue to expand across the country. The question of criminal history and when or if a criminal history can be utilized in a vetting process has been significantly challenged, forcing landlords, HR departments and universities to review existing policies. For many parties a best practice is to work with a well-qualified third-party employment screening agency in order to remain compliant with existing and potential law.

To read more about how ban-the-box laws are migrating from employment screening over to College applications and why removing the box asking about criminal history could be good for those with a criminal record to achieve gainful employment and access to higher education and that this would also be good for the country read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Ban the Box Goes to College: The Next Evolution in Eliminating the Question of Criminal History

With a new administration in the White House new laws are being presented in Congress, ones that may not have had traction recently, and a move to Ban-the-Box as a federal mandate has been reintroduced.

Recent introduction of a bill to mandate Ban-the-Box legislation in both the public and private sector should immediately put hiring managers on alert and ensure current pre-employment background screening policies are compliant by working with a well-qualified third-party background screening agency.

Recently Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Rep. David Trone (D-MD) presented the Workforce Justice Act, an act that would mandate the removal of the criminal history question on employment applications. The time may be now for a successful passage of the Workforce Justice Act, and hiring managers should take immediate note, ensure their hiring policies are current, and work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency to remain compliant with laws governing hiring.

Ban-the-Box legislation has grown since the first bill emerged from Hawaii over 20 years ago. During the corresponding years many states and local municipalities have enacted similar laws requiring an elimination of the criminal past question on employment applications.

From HRDive.com on March 3, 2021:

There’s a growing push in the U.S. to remove the barriers standing in the way of job seekers with criminal histories.

States and cities have adopted ban-the-box legislation, which prohibits employers from requiring applicants to indicate whether they have a criminal history record. ^{hrdive.com/news/2nd-cir-wont-reconsider-whether-criminal-history-hiring-ban-disparately-i/596058/}

In early March of this year Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and David Trone (D-MD) introduced the Work Justice Act into Congress.

From a press release from the Office of David Trone, on March 3, 2021:

Ahead of the House of Representatives’ historic vote on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, Congressman David Trone (MD-06) and Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-43) introduced the Workforce Justice Act, which would encourage states to ‘ban the box’ on employment applications nationwide and give justice-impacted individuals a greater chance of gaining employment. ^{trone.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-trone-waters-introduce-historic-legislation-ban-box-employment}

Changing how the question of criminal history and related criminal history reports can be used in the hiring process will be a significant move. For companies large and small this may cause considerable concern. However, at some point after the initial employment application is filled out employers can pull criminal history reports on potential hires depending on how the ban-the-box legislation works in their jurisdiction, sometimes only after an initial offer is made can a criminal report be pulled.

From BlackEnterprises.com on March 5, 2021:

“This legislation to ban the box would take critical steps forward to ensure that the over 70 million Americans who have an arrest or conviction record are not left behind. By prohibiting private employers from asking about the criminal history of a job applicant prior to the extension of a conditional offer of employment … job applicants with a criminal history will be evaluated based on

their qualifications alone and have a fair shot at rebuilding and reclaiming their lives.” ^{blackenterprise.com/maxine-waters-introduces-bill-ending-bias-against-job-applicants-with-criminal-records/}

In light of this potentially historic legislation a best practice remains for companies and organizations to work with a well-qualified employment screening agency in order to stay ahead of emerging trends and law.

To read more about the newly introduced Workforce Justice Act in Congress and why this could become the first national Ban-the-Box law read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Growing Push for National Ban-the-Box Law Should Alert Hiring Managers

Ban-the-Box laws across the country and across many jurisdictions can be very different from each other and can cause great confusion to hiring managers trying to be compliant. These such laws can vary drastically from one another creating a big challenge for HR departments and hiring managers trying to be consistent in their hiring practices.

A recent modification in Montgomery County’s Ban-the-Box law highlights how laws governing the use of criminal history records can change quickly and, potentially, cause confusion to hiring managers and HR departments. Any jurisdiction, city, county or state can create a Ban-the-Box law and each law can be significantly different from other similar laws and, additionally, create confusion regarding the legal use of Criminal History reports as a part of pre-employment background screening.

Montgomery County recently upgraded an existing Ban-the-Box law, one that is more restrictive than those in nearby and neighboring cities and counties as well as the state of Maryland, thereby creating the potential for significant confusion with hiring managers and HR departments. The action by Montgomery County highlights the challenges hiring and HR departments face daily with overlapping law and suggests the use of a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency remains a best practice.

Recently, Montgomery County, in Maryland, updated an existing Ban-the-Box law. The new law creates greater restrictions and control regarding the use of criminal history questions on employment applications as well as the use of Criminal History records as a part of pre-employment background screening.

From ConnectNewspapers.com on November 19, 2020:

Last week, the Montgomery County Council unanimously enacted Bill 35-20, Human Rights and Civil Liberties – Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards – Amendments, which aims to help prevent workplace discrimination by prohibiting background checks prior to the extension of a conditional offer of employment and preventing inquiries into certain types of arrests and convictions. Councilmember Will Jawando is the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Bill 35-20 expands the scope of the law by prohibiting background checks until after a conditional job offer has been extended. The bill also prevents inquiries about certain crimes altogether. In addition, it redefines “employer” to include any employer in the County, except certain types of employers such as those that provide services to minors or vulnerable adults. ^{connectionnewspapers.com/news/2020/nov/19/montgomery-county-council-enacts-ban-box-bill/}

The change to the Montgomery County law creates a more restrictive environment regarding criminal history use.

From Lexology.com on December 1, 2020:

Effective February 19, 2021, Montgomery County’s Ban-the-Box law is becoming far more restrictive and will apply to all employers – not just those with 15 or more employees.

As employers with employees in Montgomery County, Maryland should know, Montgomery County had previously enacted a Ban-the-Box law that prohibited inquiries about an applicant’s arrest or conviction record until the end of the first interview. (The “Box” refers to the box, contained on many employment applications that must be checked if the applicant has a criminal background record.) This law has now been amended, with expansive new protections for applicants and employees of all Montgomery County employers. ^{lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=27504738-2b4a-4ae2-b1ea-9cd1206013d1}

Hiring managers need to know that not all Ban-the-Box laws are created alike and, in fact, laws in the same state often can be significantly different from each other. The Montgomery County law is more restrictive than the state law in Maryland.

From Mondaq.com on November 26, 2020:

Notably, Bill 35-20 is more restrictive than Maryland’s statewide ban-the-box law, which took effect on February 29, 2020. The statewide legislation currently applies to employers with 15 or more full-time employees and permits an employer to inquire about criminal history during the first interview. Montgomery County is one of three jurisdictions in Maryland where the ban-the-box law is more restrictive than the state law, the other two being Prince George’s County and Baltimore City. ^{mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-rights-labour-relations/1009956/montgomery-county-md-amends-ban-the-box-legislation-?type=related}

Any change to Ban-the-Box laws or any law related to pre-employment background screening should force a Hiring Manager and/or HR department to take immediate note. In order to maintain compliance with laws governing the use of criminal history records and other related public records employers need to be aware of their responsibilities when it comes to legally following these such laws. In light of the drastic differences between these laws and the overlapping of such laws at different levels of the government it is clear that more consistency is needed to avoid confusion and non-compliance.

At this point in time it is imperative that businesses and organizations understand the intricacies of ban-the-box laws that affect them and a best approach is to partner with a well-qualified employment screening company which can assist them in becoming and remaining compliant and aware of such changes in law.

To learn more about why the recent modification Montgomery County made to their already existing ban-the-box laws is so significant and why such differences between such laws across multiple jurisdictions and States is causing so much confusion and is making compliance with such laws more challenging for hiring managers read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Change in Ban-the-Box Law Highlight Challenges for Hiring Managers & HR Depts.; Opines CriminalBackgroundRecords.com

It is essential that employment screening efforts and policies not be derailed or abandoned during the Covid-19 pandemic. Over the past twenty-years having a criminal history record is no longer the significant impact it once used to be and as more entities enact ban-the-box laws policy opportunities will continue to expand. Additionally the perception of a criminal history as entirely negative has begun to change as well. With every change to laws governing the use of criminal history reports during the Covid-19 pandemic hiring managers and HR departments should ensure continued compliance by working with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency.

On September 15, 2020 Hawaii enacted significant changes to the state’s ban-the-box laws and, being the first state to enact these laws, may prove the example for ongoing reform. Laws governing the use of public records, such as Criminal Histories, will continue to evolve, and Hawaii’s amendment to an existing law highlights why the time is now to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to keep pace with change and maintain compliance.

In 1998 Hawaii enacted the first ban-the-box legislation in the United States, becoming the example for all legislation to follow. On September 15, 2020 Hawaii further enforced their anti-discrimination policies by updating existing ban-the-box law.

From Lexology.com on September 16, 2020:

Hawaii has long had a law limiting the discretion that employers have to consider older criminal conviction records in making employment decisions. Effective September 15, 2020, SB 2193 prevents most private sector employers from considering conviction records within the last 10 years, but only convictions within seven years for felony convictions, and five years for misdemeanor convictions, excluding periods of incarceration.1 Hawaii shortened the 10-year lookback period “to reduce unnecessary employment discrimination against individuals with old and relatively minor conviction records, in furtherance of economic self-sufficiency, and to reduce crime and recidivism rates.” ^{lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=066c4e32-6f76-4227-ae05-e11cb50b9380}

The amendment to Hawaii’s ban-the-box law shows how laws can change and with change hiring managers and HR departments should be sure that pre-employment background screening policies are current and compliant. Hawaii’s change exemplifies why vetting policies must be continuously reviewed.

Overall, the attitude towards hiring individuals with conviction records is changing. A great example is with Mod Pizza as illustrated in a recent FAST COMPANY article (September 23, 2020).

For employers, providing equal opportunity for people with criminal background records is not only the right thing to do; it’s also good for business. For proof, look no further than MOD Pizza, a fast-growing pizza restaurant chain that thrives despite stiff competition from major brands with household names. The secret sauce? MOD Pizza pays living wages and actively recruits ex-convicts and felons, many of whom have gone on to become store managers and brand ambassadors. Founder Scott Svenson, reflecting on his commitment to providing equal opportunity, stated he has “discovered that it’s also a more powerful business model if you give people something to work towards that is more than just a paycheck.” ^{fastcompany.com/90553770/a-criminal-conviction-doesnt-have-to-be-a-career-death-sentence}

The use of criminal history records as a part of background screening has evolved, as has the attitude toward those with conviction records, but a best practice for hiring managers and HR departments has not changed. By working with a

third-party pre-employment background screening agency employers can stay compliant with laws governing the use of public records. Even during these times employment screening is still necessary and imperative in the USA.

To learn more about why people in the USA with criminal history records can still get hired due to laws like ban-the-box legislation and other efforts to aid those with criminal convictions achieve gainful employment read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Criminal History Records Need Not Hold One Back

Recently the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a guidance for employers regarding existing employees and new hires as related to the recent novel Coronavirus outbreak, or COVID 19. As with any guidance release from the EEOC employers will have questions as to how this guidance will affect their existing employees as well as new employees.

Whenever a significant document regarding pre-employment background screening or managing employees in general, such as the recent guidance from the EEOC, companies should take immediate notice and work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to remain compliant with law and to help protect the people under their employment.

With the new Guidance companies now have procedures as how to manage a business in the midst of a pandemic. The EEOC is clear in how to manage potential illness and information related to such under the law and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

From AkinGump.com (Apr. 01, 2020):

The EEOC’s guidance clarifies how, consistent with federal disability discrimination laws, employers may (i) screen new hires and employees for COVID-19, including by using temperature checks; (ii) protect the workforce by delaying start dates for new hires and removing employees from the workplace who present a risk of transmitting the virus to others; (iii) notify coworkers who may have been exposed to the virus due to an employee testing positive; and (iv) ensure that employees returning to work are fit to do so through certification by a health care provider. ^{akingump.com/en/news-insights/eeoc-issues-updated-guidance-on-covid-19-and-federal-disability-discrimination-laws.html}

Additionally COVID 19 is considered a “direct threat” as considered under the ADA.

From HKLaw.com (Mar. 25, 2020):

The ADA generally prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of disability. However, the ADA allows employers to exclude individuals from the workplace if they pose a “direct threat” to the health or safety of themselves or other employees. A direct threat is defined as someone who poses a “substantial risk” to the health or safety of other employees in the workplace that cannot be mitigated or eliminated by reasonable accommodation.

On March 21, 2020, the EEOC declared that the COVID-19 pandemic meets the definition of a direct threat. ^{https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/03/eeoc-updates-published-guidance-for-covid-19-pandemic-preparedness}

It is important that companies and organizations pay close attention to new rules and guidance on how to handle their employees during this crisis. They must remain vigilant in ensuring the people within their organizations and the people they come in contact through won’t be further spreading COVID-19.

From HRDive.com (Mar. 23, 2020):

If hiring, employers may screen applicants for COVID-19 symptoms, EEOC said. It must do so for “all entering employees in the same type of job,” regardless of whether the applicant has a disability. Furthermore, employers may take applicant’s temperatures “as part of a post-offer, pre-employment medical exams.” Employers may also delay the start date of applicants who exhibit COVID-19 symptoms, per CDC guidance, EEOC said. An employer can withdraw a job offer if it needs an applicant to start

immediately but the applicant has COVID-19 or its symptoms. ^{https://www.hrdive.com/news/employers-can-screen-workers-applicants-for-fevers-eeoc-says/574556/}

Additionally when it comes to new hires the rules have not changed that much as new hires must be treated fairly and equally throughout the vetting and hiring process, but now must also follow the guidance provided by the EEOC. With the COVID 19 outbreak those rules have been slightly altered but the overarching principle of equality and non-discrimination remain firm.

In the end even in a world undergoing a pandemic it is still extremely important to treat all employees the same way whether it comes to testing or work related practices. Discrimination in the worst sense of the word is never a good thing and usually the worst of practices.

To read more about the new EEOC guidance regarding COVID-19 and how this impacts pre-employment background screening and post-employment practices along with why this Pandemic constitutes a “direct threat” under the ADA read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: COVID19 and the EEOC Guidance

The Government of West Virginia just proved it is NOT always instant legislative passage when it comes to passing ban-the-box laws. The Government of West Virginia recently killed a ban-the-box bill and it was the Republicans that did it. Even though such laws have been enacted by many jurisdictions across the country that doesn’t mean it is a guarantee to pass into law.

Many opponents of ban-the-box legislation are still waiting on some hard evidence that these such laws do actually help those with a criminal past achieve gainful employment. Much more research is desperately needed to demonstrate specific statistics in order to prove that such laws are actually achieving what these ban-the-box laws are created to do. However, this process should still remind employers and hiring managers why they should ensure pre-employment background screening policies are current and compliant with law.

Hiring managers need to take note whenever a law governing the use of criminal background records are attempted, such as the recent action in West Virginia, and a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to remain compliant with existing law and aware of potential law.

The legislature in West Virginia recently went through an unsuccessful effort to implement Ban-the-Box legislation for all public agencies. Even when a legislative effort fails to implement a Ban-the-Box law, employers and hiring managers should take note and ensure existing policies are compliant with law.

Legislators in West Virginia recently attempted to enact a Ban-the-Box law that would force all public employers and agencies to ban the question of criminal history on applications. It explicitly dictates when the offer of employment can be made as well as when a background check that includes criminal history information can be conducted.

The movement behind eliminating criminal history from the employment application is to allow for greater access for employment from individuals with criminal histories.

From West Virginia’s Register-Herald on February 22, 2020 discussing the reasons behind Ban-the-Box in West Virginia:

Del. Sammi Brown, D-Jefferson, the bill sponsor, noted that criminal convictions are one symptom of the ongoing drug epidemic.

“It’s a public safety matter,” she said. “It’s a decreasing crime matter. It’s also getting folks back into the job force and making them fully capable and autonomous over their own lives, and you’re less likely to commit another crime if you’re gainfully employed. You’re less likely to go back into incarceration if you’re providing for yourself and your family, and we just want to give folks quality of life and dignity.” ^{register-herald.com/news/state_region/w-va-committee-passes-ban-the-box-legislation-for-public/article_45660d6f-942b-52a4-87e3-21c3652a0659.html}

But the push for Ban-the-Box legislation brings political challenges.

After introduction Republican’s killed the Ban-the-Box legislation.

From Register-Herald webpage on February 27, 2020:

Republicans in the West Virginia House of Delegates Rules Committee voted on Wednesday to kill a bill that would have prevented public employers from asking about a job applicant’s criminal history unless the applicant signed a waiver. ^{register-herald.com/news/state_region/republicans-remove-ban-the-box-legislation-from-agenda/article_1e6a611b-c861-5b08-b986-ee5c7c4e6313.html}

Employers and hiring managers should pay attention to all legislative action, even those that don’t pass into law. A best practice remains that all hiring managers and employers work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment screening agency to stay fully compliant with existing and potential laws governing the use of criminal history reports as a part of background screening.

Even with the failed effort in West Virginia Ban-the-Box legislation will continue to find its way into different jurisdictions throughout the country, however there will continue to be challenges to all legislative actions. At this point it is still a best practice for all hiring managers and employers to check their current policies and procedures on pre-employment screening to ensure compliance with law.

To read more about West Virginia’s failed attempt to pass ban-the-box legislation and why more research on the effectiveness of such laws needs to be done and why there are valid arguments to both sides read the recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Ban-the-Box Not Always Instant Legislative Passage, Employers Should Still Take Notice; Opines CriminalBackgroundRecords.com

New ban-the-box legislation in Waterloo, Iowa that is scheduled to take effect July 1st 2020 is taking heavy heat from the business groups that oppose the ordinance. The new law would prevent private employers from asking about criminal background history on job applications. The new law would be even stricter than other ban-the-box laws that have been adopted elsewhere in the country. The new Waterloo Iowa law has seen tremendous backlash from people arguing that the ordinance is unlawful when compared to any other regulation of hiring practices under state and federal law.

Iowa’s “Ban-the-Box” legislation is set to take effect on July 1, 2020, but recent challenges may delay the date.

From SouthernMinn.com (Jan. 06, 20):

A state business group is asking the court to strike down a city ordinance that would prevent private employers from inquiring about criminal backgrounds on job applications.

On Jan. 2, the Iowa Association of Business and Industry filed for an injunction in Black Hawk County District Court to head off Waterloo’s “ban the box” rule, which is scheduled to begin in July. ^{southernminn.com/around_the_web/news/article_ed3f883c-d3ec-5b3f-bd4c-2538d1921147.html}

Challenges to law are common and only add to the confusion of when or whether a law will be implemented. Ban-the-Box legislation is designed to assist in eliminating potential discrimination and allow greater access for all groups, especially recently incarcerated individuals.

A best practice for all hiring managers is to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to remain up-to-date with all laws that could potentially affect their industry.

While the city is yet to comment on the potential litigation, the claim suggests that the Ban-the-Box law violates state constitution.

From SouthernMinn.com (Jan. 06, 20):

According to Iowa ABI’s petition, the group warned city officials before the vote the ordinance would violate a 2017 state law that ABI championed prohibiting cities from adopting ordinances that “exceed or conflict with the requirements of federal or state law … relating to hiring practices.” ^ibid

Ban-the-box laws have been implemented across the country, the most recent being the Fair Chance Act initiated at the federal level enacted as part of a funding bill. Employers need to understand that laws, such as ban-the-box legislation, can often be challenged in court and without paying strict attention may be unaware of the status of laws governing their industry. That is why it is important to work with a professional employment screening agency which can help in assisting with compliance to new and existing law.

Below is part of the complaint against the city of Waterloo, as transcribed from a recent article on KWWL.com (Jan 06 20):

(1) The Iowa Association of Business and Industry filed this lawsuit to stop Waterloo’s clearly unlawful ordinance that regulates when and how employers can consider an applicant’s criminal history. The ordinance is one of the broadest criminal-history ordinances in the country, going well beyond any regulation of hiring practices under state or federal law. It doesn’t just affect when an employer can inquire about an applicant’s criminal history; it also forbids employers from considering criminal history at all in some circumstances. ^{kwwl.com/2020/01/06/waterloo-facing-suit-over-ban-the-box/}

At this point in time it is very important for employers to take a hard look at the new Waterloo, Iowa ban-the-box law and compare it to existing state and federal law concerning certain hiring practices and determine for themselves if they want these kind of restrictions in the way they hire employees. This could quickly escalate to the state and/or federal level and people in this country need to look into this issue with great care and deliberation as it could affect the future of how employers can go about the hiring of new employees.

Although avoiding discrimination is always a good course of action it is also important to be prudent and realistic about the possible risks involved as well.

As the opposing philosophies regarding hiring practices debate this subject, it is very important that employers and hiring managers pay close attention to this issue as the winning philosophy will have a tremendous impact on the future.

During this time of uncertainty regarding the use/lawfulness of criminal background records in the hiring process a best approach and practice for employers and human resource personnel is to work with a well-qualified professional employment screening agency that can assist with remaining compliant with existing and new law governing hiring practices in the USA and within certain jurisdictions within the USA.

To read more about the new ban-the-box legislation in Waterloo, Iowa and why there is so much opposition to it and how such an ordinance could be in direct contradiction to already existing state and federal laws regarding the hiring process read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: {Insert January CBR Press Release Link}

The next evolution of ban-the-box laws looks to emerge into the apartment rental industry. These laws in recent years have swept across the country when it comes to employment screening. But now the ban-the-box movement has made its way to the tenant screening arena.

Ban-the-box type regulations may impact Detroit rental applications and might be the first step in a wave of change that could significantly alter how the question of criminal history is handled in housing.

Changes in how applications are managed and what preliminary questions, such as ones concerning criminal history, are utilized has revolutionized the pre-employment hiring process in many municipalities across the country and, now, these changes may be coming to rental applications.

Change is a constant, and change continues to affect how criminal background records are used in application vetting. Pre-employment background screening, in some municipalities, employers are limited as to how they utilize criminal records as part of the vetting process. These Ban-the-Box laws are felt necessary to create a fairer hiring process by eliminating the potential of bias and discrimination from interfering with the process.

Viable housing goes a long way in defeating recidivism, as does gainful employment. Ban-the-box laws are designed to assist in creating a fair hiring environment. The same may hold true in the housing market.

From CaseyGrants.org (Oct. 14,19):

Nearly all rental applications ask about criminal records. According to the FBI, 73.5 million Americans have a criminal record – defined as having a felony arrest. Landlords are known to consider felony and misdemeanor convictions, charges and arrests. ^{caseygrants.org/evn/desmond-meade-made-history-but-housing-is-still-out-of-reach/}

And Detroit, Michigan may be leading the country in banning the question of criminal history on housing applications.

From the Detroit Free Press (Nov. 01, 19):

Giving more people a chance is the intention of a new ordinance in Detroit that “bans the box” asking about criminal history from most rental applications, preventing landlords from immediately disqualifying prospective tenants because of their convictions. ^{freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/11/01/detroit-rental-application-ordinance-criminal-records/3851517002/}

A “Ban on the Box” in Detroit would affect a great many people and could create opportunity in housing for those that had been challenged with a criminal record.

From the Detroit Free Press (Nov. 01, 19):

Formerly incarcerated people are nearly 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general public, according to a 2018 report by the nonprofit Prison Policy Initiative. People of color, women, those incarcerated more than once, and people recently released from prison are the most impacted. ^ibid

Tenant screening should be done in a fair and equitable manner, one that does not discriminant

Ultimately a best practice remains for landlords and/or property managers to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency in order to remain fully compliant with existing law, as well as potential laws that could greatly affect tenant screening.

To learn more about the emergence of ban-the-box laws into the rental housing arena and how such new laws may affect how landlords and property managers can go about their tenant background screening read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: Ban the Box on Rental Applications; the Next Evolution in Background Screening

Performing post-hire background checks typically once per year has been a practice for many companies and organizations for a while now, however it has now been brought to the forefront of employment screening practices.

The recent example that ride-hail company Lyft employed as part of their prevention policy to help thwart the possibility of their driver’s committing offenses such as sexual assault may become a best practice for other companies in the USA. This practice is called “Continuous Background Checking”, a process in which an employer performs ongoing criminal background checks on their employees, part-time employees and even independent contractors in this Gig Economy in an ongoing way say once a year or less to ensure that if new offenses occur they will become aware of them hopefully in time to mitigate risk.

The rideshare company Lyft has recently faced legal challenges regarding sexual assault. Inadequate background checks are cited as one of the core problems regarding Lyft’s hiring practices.

From CBSNews.com (Sep 05, 19):

Fourteen women who said they were raped or sexually assaulted by Lyft drivers are suing the ride-hail company. The suit claims Lyft mishandled their complaints against drivers, in some cases allowing the drivers to continue working following the alleged assaults.

In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday in San Francisco, the anonymous women claim the app does not do enough to stop drivers from assaulting passengers. They allege Lyft fails to adequately perform background checks, does not communicate with victims after they accuse drivers of sexual assault, and does not have adequate technology in place to protect passengers. ^{cbsnews.com/news/lyft-lawsuit-14-women-file-lawsuit-after-drivers-allegedly-sexually-assaulted-them/}

As a result of all these sexual assault claims Lyft started using continuous background checks as part of their prevention policy and this may prove advantageous. Continuous background checks are a growing trend in employment background screening practices.”

From BusinessInsider.com (Sep 10, 19):

Tuesday’s announcements add to previous safety features that have been part of Lyft’s app for some time, like continuous criminal background checks that flag any drivers who may turn up in databases following their initial hiring, and location sharing. ^{businessinsider.com/lyft-drivers-required-to-take-safety-training-after-attacks-lawsuit-2019-9}

Continuous background checks are increasing in popularity and could be an important addition to any companies’ background screening policy.

From HRTechnologist.com (Jul 22, 19):

While facts like education credentials and employment information remain constant throughout an employee’s career, criminal records, driving records, and credit reports can change. As organizations place talent at the core of their growth strategy, ensuring that they have the right talent is now more important than ever. With workplace harassment, embezzlement, and fraud triggering concerns about the quality of the existing workforce’s character, employers are keen on continuous monitoring. ^{hrtechnologist.com/articles/background-verification/what-is-continuous-background-screening/}

It is true that continuous background screening would keep an employer well informed, but the frequency in which one can conduct such a background check is a gray area. A best practice would be to work with a well-qualified third-party background screening company in order to remain compliant with existing law and to figure out the appropriate frequency in which to perform ongoing background checks.

Unfortunately, the trend has proven slow to catch on. While the reasoning is sound, the adaptation has lagged behind.

From SHRM, the Society of Human Resource Management, (Apr. 08, 19):

The trend hasn’t caught on among most companies yet, though, as only 4 percent of 6,500 HR professionals said that their organizations perform continuous, rolling background checks on their employees, according to a survey conducted in July 2018 and released by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) today… ^{shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/shrm-trend-continuous-background-screening.aspx}

Companies follow trends and with Uber and now Lyft conducting post-hire background checks others will follow. Certainly, a best practice remains that companies work with a well-qualified third-party background screening agency in order to understand continuous background checks (post-hire) and the value they may represent.

Although slowly; continuous background checks are increasing in popularity and could be an important addition to any companies’ current background screening policy.

In the light that there were fourteen women so said they were either raped or sexually assaulted by Lyft drivers it is important for companies and organizations doing continuous background checks to also include a 50 State Sex Offender Registry check each time they perform a background check.

In addition to a complete criminal background check one that includes a national sex offender check it is also very advantageous to perform a Social Security Number Search with Address History Trace so the employer can see all the places that a person has been to make sure they do background screening from every place the person has lived so no one falls through the cracks.

To read more about how employing continuous background screening practices can help avoid repeat offenders from assaulting or committing crimes against customers such as passengers from companies like Lyft and why continuous background screening that includes a national sex offender check may become a best practice for companies and organizations in the USA read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release:
Lyft Potential Example of Continuous Background Screening Best Practice; Opines CriminalBackgroundRecords.com

California legislators are looking to introduce AB1076, a new law that would automatically expunge or clear past criminal background records that were misdemeanors or certain non-violent felonies. The purpose behind this new law is to help ex-offenders have an easier time finding employment, getting higher education and finding a decent place to live. Under such law it should make it easier for these types of individuals to be reintroduced to society and minimize the possibility of recidivism.

This new potential law will automatically expunge or clear a variety of conviction records thereby allowing hundreds of thousands of individuals to be cleared of a criminal history and, subsequently, open the doors wider to renting, education, and employment.

A significant action, such as the one in California, should immediately alert all hiring managers and Human Resource Departments to insure pre-employment background screening policies remain fully compliant with law by working with a well-qualified third-party background screening agency.

Politicians in California look to introduce legislation that would automatically expunge or clear past criminal misdemeanor or low level felony convictions as a means of easing entrance back into society. Eliminating certain non-violent convictions will remove a criminal history and could allow for easier access to employment, education, and renting for formerly incarcerated individuals.

From the San Francisco Chronicle website (Mar 07, 19):

People arrested or convicted of crimes in California could have their criminal records automatically cleared under a proposed law announced Thursday by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón and Assemblyman Phil Ting.

AB1076 would wipe out eligible convictions for people who have completed local sentences and eliminate many arrest records that have not resulted in convictions. Offenders already are eligible to petition the courts for the relief, but less then {sic} 20 percent take advantage of the program. sfchronicle.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-s-Gasc-n-Ting-propose-13671420.php

A criminal history remains a significant challenge that prohibits or greatly impedes reintegration into society. Across the country a movement called “Ban-the-Box” has been pushing to legislate the question of criminal history off employment applications. The action in California may be the next evolution in criminal justice reform within the USA.

From KRON.com (Mar 07, 19):

According to the district attorney’s office, there are 8 million residents in California with criminal conviction records that in turn come with 40,000 legal restrictions— collateral consequences, that hinder them from starting over. kron4.com/news/bay-area/new-california-bill-would-automatically-clear-criminal-records/1833873301

The key to starting over is access to housing, employment, and education. However, AB1076 will not allow expungement of violent or sex related convictions.

From the San Francisco Chronicle website (Mar 07, 19):

Under AB1076, arrests and convictions will continue to appear on criminal rap sheets, and felons would still be prohibited from possessing firearms. Registered sex offenders and sentences served in state prison would not be eligible for automatic clearance. sfchronicle.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-s-Gasc-n-Ting-propose-13671420.php

With such a law as AB1076 looming about hiring managers and HR departments should be alerted by the significance of what this means for employment screening policies and hiring practices. At this point a best course of action remains to work with a well-qualified third-party employment screening agency in order to remain fully compliant with existing and emerging laws governing background screening and the use of criminal background records.

Criminal history records remain a significant obstacle to ex-offenders as they continue to prohibit or greatly impede reintegration into society. As more and more “Ban-the-Box” laws get implemented across the country the chances of ex-cons getting employed should rise, however the next big step is what California legislators are trying to do; which would be deemed the next evolution in criminal justice reform within the USA. If the law passes it will allow individuals with certain kinds of criminal background records to clear their history which according to this new bill will make it so the individual’s criminal past never occurred at all.

With the possibility of removal of certain criminal records the obstacle of finding gainful employment for ex-offenders should be abridged and the ease of admittance into higher education and finding a place to live should also be easier to attain.

To read more about AB1076 California’s new potential law that would automatically expunge or clear certain kind of criminal records and how this can help ex-offenders attain gainful employment, higher education and a decent living situation read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Potential California Law May Affect Use of Criminal History Information