Megan C Kurlychek Shawn D Bushway Garima Siwach and Megan Denver University at Albany This research was supported by award 2012MUMU0048 from the National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs US Department of Justice The opinions findings and conclusions expressed in th ID: 745261
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Defensible Decisions: Formalized Proce..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Defensible Decisions: Formalized Processes for Assessing Risk in Hiring PracticesMegan C. Kurlychek, Shawn D, Bushway, Garima Siwach and Megan Denver University at Albany
This research was supported by award 2012-MU-MU-0048 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice.Slide2
Original Question: When is it safe to hire?Slide3
Problem?Suggests TIME only relevant factor regardless of nature of criminal career so all we can do is “WAIT”Slide4
Legal ContextEEOC Guidelines require other factors such as relevance of offense to job duties in an “individualized” assessment of the individualThus, a policy to NOT hire anyone with a record until 7 or 10 years after event may not meet legal requirementsSlide5
What else might help assess risk?Number of offensesType of offensesSeverity of offensesDuties of job at hand and relevance of offensesEvidence of RehabilitationSlide6
Our Current ProjectTo examine how employers assess risk.To set this in the context of legal mandates and regulations.To determine if the current practice:1. Allows for the hire of reasonable individuals
2. Makes a meaningful difference for those hiredSlide7
Our PartnersNYS Dept. of HealthClearance decision and employment dates
NYS Dept. of Criminal Justice Services
Full criminal history prior to decision; 3 years post
FBI records
NYS Dept. of Labor
UI employment data for 6 years (3 pre; 3 post)
A special thank you to these agencies!Slide8
New York: Legal ContextNew York Law prohibits blanket bansArticle 23 of the Corrections Law:Time since last offenseRelation of offense to job dutiesAge at offenseSeverity of Offense (ADQ)Evidence of RehabilitationSlide9
Context of Our StudyNew York State Department of HealthNon-licensed direct access care workers in NY Home health care, nursing homes, long-term careCHRCLU reviews up to 140,000 provisionally hired individuals a year—about 4-5% have a recordUse official records –state and national
Have defined automatic “hire” and automatic “denial” criteria
Discretionary pool reviewed by attorneySlide10
Sample DescriptivesEmployees
Age range
16-92
Median
age
37
% Black
42%
% White
49%
%
Men
15%
Facilities
Nursing homes 34%LHCSA facilities65%Facilities in NYC56%Slide11
The DOH Process
Person applies and is provisionally hired
The person is fingerprinted and DOH’s CHRC division reviews the case
The person receives a pending or final decision letterSlide12
No Conviction
Hired
91%
Open, not held in abeyance
1%
Non-Denial A or B
3%
DOH processesSlide13
Open, held in abeyance
Terminated
1%
Final Non-Denial B : Hired
Final Denial A or B: Terminated
Pending
26.5%
73.5%
4%
DOH processesSlide14Slide15
Impact of Clearance: Does is Matter for Employee?Our Approach: DiD models EXAMPLESlide16
Any Employment: three years from decisionSlide17
Health Care Employment: three years from decision Slide18
Income: Conditional on Being HiredSlide19
ImplicationsRules for considering type of offense and its relation to job can be applied consistentlySuch rules DO allow for the hire of a significant portion of individuals with criminal recordsThe ability to gain employment makes a significant difference in employment and earnings outcomes for this populationSlide20
Directions1. Benchmark acceptable levels of risk2. Closer examination of 10-year rule3. Help DOH determine if there are better criteria to use in discretionary pool to reduce false positives and false negatives