Pre-Employment Background Screening: Legal Pitfalls g Avoiding - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

presents

Pre-Employment Background Screening: Legal Pitfalls

presents

g

Avoiding Discrimination and Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims

A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A

Today's panel features: Rod M. Fliegel, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson, San Francisco Robert Pickell, Senior Vice President of Customer Solutions, HireRight, Inc., Irvine, Calif. Shawn Bushway Associate Professor University at Albany Albany N Y Shawn Bushway, Associate Professor, University at Albany, Albany, N.Y.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010 The conference begins at: The conference begins at: 1 pm Eastern 12 pm Central 11 am Mountain 10 am Pacific 10 am Pacific

You can access the audio portion of the conference on the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the dial in/ log in instructions emailed to registrants.

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by y

• closing the notification box
• and typing in the chat box your
• and typing in the chat box your

company name and the number of attendees attendees.

• Then click the blue icon beside the box

to send to send.

For live event only. For live event only.

• If you are listening via your computer

If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and lit f i t t ti quality of your internet connection.

• If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you

li t i i t k are listening via your computer speakers, please dial 1-866-869-6667 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send e p o p ed O e se, p ease se d us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem.

• If you dialed in and have any difficulties

during the call, press *0 for assistance.

Pre-Employment p y Background

Se pte mb e r 8, 2010

Screening

L l Pitf ll L e g a l Pitfa lls

4

Rod F lie g e l, E sq.

L ittle r Me nde lso n, P.C.

Robe rt Pic ke ll

Hire Rig ht I nc Hire Rig ht, I nc ., I rvine , CA

• Prof. Sha wn Bushwa y
• Univ. a t Alb a ny

Se pte mb e r 8, 2010

5

Agenda Agenda

I t

d ti t B k d R t

Introduc tion to Ba c kg round Re ports

– Rob Pic ke ll, Hire Rig ht

g

L

e g a l Ove rvie w

– Rod F

lie g e l, L ittle r

L

a te st Sc hola rship

L

a te st Sc hola rship

– Prof. Sha wn Bushwa y

6

Background Reports Background Reports

Rob Pic ke ll, SVP Custome r Solutions Hire Rig ht Solutions, Hire Rig ht

7

A “Typical” Background Report Report

Privileged and Confidential 8

Background Report Overview Background Report Overview

E

a c h individua l ba c kg round re port

Sa mple Sc re e ning Se rvic e s E

a c h individua l ba c kg round re port is a fa c tor of:

• T

he spe c ific de ta ils of the individua l be ing sc re e ne d

Sa mple Sc re e ning Se rvic e s

• County, State & F

e de r al c r iminal r e c or ds

• National c r

iminal database r e c or ds

• Inte r

national c r iminal r e c or ds se ar c he s S Off d R i t S h

• T

he unique c ombina tion of se rvic e s re que ste d for the sc re e n

Se rvic e s se le c tion drive n by

• Se x Offe nde r

Re gistr y Se ar c he s

• Addr

e ss Histor y Se ar c h

• Soc ial Se c ur

ity Numbe r Validation

• E

mployme nt Ve r ific ations

• E

duc ation Ve r ific ations

spe c ific re quire me nts

• Industry spe c ific issue s
• Position a nd c ompe nsa tion

E duc ation Ve r ific ations

• Cr

e dit Histor y

• Motor

Ve hic le Re c or ds Che c ks

• Comme r

c ial Dr ive r s L ic e nse Che c ks

• Pr
• fe ssional L

ic e nse Ve r ific ation

• Compa ny polic y
• Gove rnme nt re g ula tions
• Ge og ra phy
• Pr
• fe ssional Cr

e de ntial Ve r ific ation

• Pr
• fe ssional Re fe r

e nc e Che c ks

• Civil Cour

t Re c or ds Se ar c he s

• Militar

y Re c or d Ve r ific ation

Individua l se rvic e re sults ma y va ry

ba se d on supplie r spe c ific fa c tors

• Inte r

national Bac kgr

• und Che c ks
• Dr

ug and He alth Sc r e e ning

• National T

he ft Database

9

Producing a Background R p t Report

Hire Rig ht E nte rprise ™ E nte rprise ™ Hire Rig ht E xpre ss ™ Pre - Inte g ra te d Solution Solution E mployme nt Applic a tion Solution Solution

Privileged and Confidential 10

Background Screening S l ti Solutions

Hire Rig ht E nte rprise ™

• Unifie d solution for g loba l org a niza tions
• Comple te prog ra m visibility
• Config ura ble to c lie nt- spe c ific polic ie s

Hire Rig ht E nte rprise ™

• Inte g ra tion with HR a pplic a tions
• E

xte nde d workforc e func tiona lity

• Compre he nsive c omplia nc e fe a ture s
• E

a sy- to- use solution for sma ll busine sse s

• Built a round be st pra c tic e s a nd sta nda rds

Hire Rig ht E xpre ss™

• No c onfig ura bility or c ustomiza tion
• Pa y a s you g o, c re dit c a rd pa yme nt
• Ba sic se rvic e s a nd se a rc he s

Privileged and Confidential 11

2010 Screening Practices g

 Hire Rig ht produc e s a nnua l be nc hma rking  Hire Rig ht produc e s a nnua l be nc hma rking

re port

 Provide s re le va nt informa tion for c ompa ring  Provide s re le va nt informa tion for c ompa ring

polic ie s, prog ra ms, a nd pra c tic e s

–

He lps org a niza tions to a dva nc e the ir sc re e ning prog ra ms

• I

de ntifie s stre ng ths a nd we a kne sse s

• Hig hlig hts pro c e ss impro ve me nts
• Suppo rts c ha ng e ma na g e me nt

–

More tha n 1,800 pe rsons from org a niza tions of a ll size s a nd industrie s pa rtic ipa te d p p

–

www.Hire Rig ht.c om/ be nc hma rking

12

Almost All Respondents Screen p

J

t th t f

Just thre e pe rc e nt of

• rg a niza tions c ontinue

to ig nore sc re e ning

–

92 pe rc e nt re quire ba c kg round sc re e ning

–

73 pe rc e nt re quire drug 73 pe c e e qu e d ug

• r a lc ohol te sting

–

28 pe rc e nt utilize the DHS E

• Ve rify syste m

y y

E

• Ve rify is ra pidly

g ro wing po st-hire sc re e ning pra c tic e sc re e ning pra c tic e

*Sourc e : 2010 Hire Rig ht Be nc hma rking Surve y n=1800

13

Screening Coverage by Worker T p Type

Almost a ll pote ntia l Almost a ll pote ntia l

re g ula r hire s a re sc re e ne d

–

T wo- thirds of c onting e nt works not sc re e ne d

–

E xisting e mploye e re c urring sc re e ning holding ste a dy a t 16 pe rc e nt

L a rg e g a ps still e xist in sc re e ning pro g ra m c o ve ra g e

*Sourc e : 2010 Hire Rig ht Be nc hma rking Surve y n=1800

14

Screening Policy Applied C i t tl Consistently

Org a niza tions ofte n

sc re e n the ir e ntire workforc e simila rly

–

Some org a niza tions va ry the ir sc re e ning by role or

• the r fa c tor

–

Be c oming more importa nt due to re g ula tions

Jo b title & pa y le ve ls b e c o ming fa c to rs in de te rmining o ptio ns de te rmining o ptio ns

*Sourc e : 2010 Hire Rig ht Be nc hma rking Surve y n=1800

15

Active Evolution of Screening Programs

Org a niza tions re g ula rly

re fine the ir sc re e ning prog ra ms p g

–

Almost one in four fre que ntly ma ke re fine me nts or improve me nts

–

Only 1 in 20 re port a sta tic prog ra m p g

F re q ue nt pro g ra m mo dific a tio ns b e c o ming pre va le nt b e c o ming pre va le nt

*Sourc e : 2010 Hire Rig ht Be nc hma rking Surve y n=1800

16

Key Screening Program Challenges y g g g

F

t l t d t d

F

a c tors re la te d to spe e d a re the most c ha lle ng ing a spe c ts

• f sc re e ning

–

Sc re e ning fa c e s ne w c ha lle ng e s: furloug he d c ourts, re sponse time c ha lle ng e s for ve rific a tions

–

Polic y de ployme nt a nd c omplia nc e ma na g e me nt top issue s a fte r time - to- hire

T ime -to -hire issue s a re to p pro g ra m c ha lle ng e s c ha lle ng e s

*Sourc e : 2010 Hire Rig ht Be nc hma rking Surve y n=1800

17

Most Report Adverse Rates of <10% <10%

Adve rse ra te s of <10% typic a l

–

Almost 30% re port hig he r a dve rse ra te s

–

Nine pe rc e nt a ve ra g e a dve rse ra te s re porte d on drug or a lc ohol te sts

–

Se ve n pe rc e nt a ve ra g e a dve rse ra te s re porte d on e mployme nt e lig ibility ve rific a tions

Adve rse ra te s re po rte d c o nsiste nt with 2009 with 2009

*Sourc e : 2010 Hire Rig ht Be nc hma rking Surve y n=1800

18

Candidate Misinformation High f g

On a ve ra g e , 10% of

a pplic a nts provide untruthful informa tion

–

70% of re sume s ha ve misinforma tion (a s re porte d by re sponde nts) p )

–

E mployme nt a nd e duc a tion va lida tion c le a rly c ritic a l

Co nflic ting e vide nc e o n whe the r fa lse info rma tio n inc re a sing

*Sourc e : 2010 Hire Rig ht Be nc hma rking Surve y n=1800

19

Legal Overview Legal Overview

Rod F lie g e l, Sha re holde r, L ittle r

20

The Legal Landscape The Legal Landscape

“I f

t t L ”

“Infra struc ture L

a ws” (e .g ., the F a ir Cre dit Re porting Ac t or "F CRA")

“De c ision Ma king L

a ws”

 De c ision Ma king L

a ws (e .g ., T itle VII of the Civil Rig hts Ac t of 1964) 1964)

21

Summary of Key Points Summary of Key Points

22

Purpose of FCRA (15 U S C § 1681 t ) (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.)

F

i t d i 1970 i il t dd

F

irst pa sse d in 1970 prima r ily to a ddre ss issue s involving c re dit

Re g ula te s the a c tivitie s of:

1 "C R ti A i " (CRA )

• 1. "Consume r

Re porting Ag e nc ie s" (CRAs)

• 2. "Use rs" (e .g ., e mploye rs)
• 3. "F

urnishe rs" of c onsume r informa tion

23

FCRA Compliance FCRA Compliance

1 Obt i i f d t f th CBC 1. Obta in informe d c onse nt for the CBC from job a pplic a nts a nd e mploye e s 2. Issue "a dve rse a c tion" le tte rs if the CBC will re sult in disqua lific a tion will re sult in disqua lific a tion 3. Se c ure de struc tion of c onsume r informa tion

24

State Law 7-Year Rules State Law 7 Year Rules

A

d d F CRA d

t

t i t CRA

Ame nde d F

CRA doe s not re str ic t CRAs from re porting any c onvic tion re c ords

Va rious sta te F

CRA la ws prohibit CRAs from re porting e ve n c onvic tion re c ords from re porting e ve n c onvic tion re c ords tha t pre - da te the ba c kg round c he c k re port by more tha n 7 ye a rs re port by more tha n 7 ye a rs

– Sta te la w prohibitions va ry c onside ra bly

25

Title VII

(42 U S C § 2000 ) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e)

P

hibit i t

ti l di i i ti

Prohibits inte ntional disc r

imination

Pr

• hibits disc rimina tion r

e sulting fr

• m
• b s d sc

a o e su g o the e ffe c t of ne utr

al polic ie s or

proc e dure s ("dispa ra te impa c t") proc e dure s ( dispa ra te impa c t )

– Gr

iggs v. Duke Powe r Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971):

“Wh t C h d d i th t “Wha t Cong re ss ha s c omma nde d is tha t a ny te sts use d must me a sure the pe rson for the j b d t th i th b t t ” job a nd not the pe rson in the a bstra c t.”

26

Title VII

(42 U S C § 2000 ) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e)

P

hibit i t

ti l di i i ti

Prohibits inte ntional disc r

imination

– E

E OC ta ke s the position tha t if a n e mploye r p p y sc re e ns a pplic a nts ba se d on c rimina l re c ords, the e mploye r must c o nsiste ntly a pply its sta nda rds

• Co urts g ive “de fe re nc e ” to b ut a re no t b o und b y

g y the E E OC’ s po sitio n

• E

E OC c a n initia te (a nd ha s initia te d) la wsuits

27

Title VII

(42 U S C § 2000 ) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e)

E

E OC ha s sta te d tha t c onvic tion base d

E

E OC ha s sta te d tha t c onvic tion-base d sc re e ning polic ie s disproportiona te ly disa dva nta g e minoritie s disa dva nta g e minoritie s

– Bla nke t disqua lific a tion g re a tly disfa vore d – Must be supporte d by "Busine ss Ne c e ssity" – T

hre e fa c tor foc us T hre e fa c tor foc us

• Co nvic tio n type
• Co nvic tio n da te
• Co nvic tio n da te
• Jo b dutie s

28

Title VII

(42 U S C § 2000 ) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e)

E

E OC'

d

h i i

E

E OC's r

e ne we d e mpha sis in:

– "Syste mic Disc rimina tion" Initia tive – "E

• RACE

" Initia tive

• E
• RACE

= E ra dic a ting Ra c ism And Co lo rism fro m E mplo yme nt

– E

E OC’s Re vise d Complia nc e Ma nua l (Ra c e a nd Color Disc rimina tion se c tion) (Ra c e a nd Color Disc rimina tion se c tion)

– Ne w E

nforc e me nt Guida nc e : Pe nding

29

Title VII

(42 U S C § 2000 ) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e)

i i i i

Commission Me e ting in 2008

– Note d the ne e d for upda te d e nforc e me nt g uida nc e – T

e stimony from Prof. De va Pa g e r a nd othe rs

• So me e vide nc e tha t, a fte r 6-8 ye a rs, risk yo ung e x-
• ffe nde rs will b e re a rre ste d fo r a ne w c rime simila r to
• ffe nde rs will b e re a rre ste d fo r a ne w c rime simila r to

risk o f me mb e r o f g e ne ra l pub lic will b e a rre ste d

• E

x-o ffe nde r ha lf a s like ly to re c e ive a c a ll-b a c k o r a j b ff l ti t ll lifi d ff d jo b o ffe r re la tive to a n e q ua lly q ua lifie d no n-o ffe nde r

• E

vide nc e tha t the e ffe c t o f a c rimina l re c o rd wa s muc h la rg e r fo r Afric a n Ame ric a ns g

30

Disparate Impact Update

E

l SE PT A 479 F 3d 232 (3 d Ci 2007)

Disparate Impact Update

E

l v. SE PT A, 479 F

.3d 232 (3r d Cir. 2007):

– Pla intiff sue d for dispa ra te impa c t – Re je c te d ba se d on viole nt c onvic tion from

40 ye ars ago

– E

mploye r re je c te d all fe lons

– T

ria l c ourt judg e agre e d polic y ha d a dispa ra te j g

g

p y p impa c t, but still thre w c a se out without a tria l

– Circ uit Court a ffirme d summa ry judg me nt for

SE PT A

31

Disparate Impact Update Disparate Impact Update

3 d Ci

it' 2007 i i i E

l

3r

d Circ uit's 2007 opinion in E

l:

– F

irst thoroug h a na lysis of the Busine ss Ne c e ssity de fe nse in the c onte xt of c onvic tion- ba se d sc re e ning polic ie s in ye a rs

– Circ uit Court ve ry ske ptic al tha t 40 ye a r old

c onvic tion wa s a me a ning ful pre dic tor of risk

L l t d d S

i li t "

t l "

– L e g a l sta nda rd : Sc re e ning polic y must "ac c urate ly"

disting uish be twe e n job a pplic a nts who pose a risk a nd those who do not ba se d on e mpiric a l e vide nc e a nd those who do not ba se d on e mpiric a l e vide nc e

32

State EEO Laws State EEO Laws

Sta te c o

nte rpa rts to T itle VII

Sta te c ounte rpa rts to T

itle VII

Spe c ific e x- offe nde r prote c tions

– Workpla c e posting a nd notic e oblig a tions – Se que nc ing re stric tions (whe n a n e mploye r c a n a sk

que stions)

– Inquiry re stric tions (wha t a n e mploye r c a nnot a sk

b t/ id ) a bout/ c onside r )

– Sourc e re stric tions (wha t a n e mploye r c a nnot a c c e ss) – "Job- re la te dne ss" re quire me nts (wha t disc re tion a n

e mploye r ha s to sc re e n out a pplic a nts)

33

General Principles General Principles

N

li t hi i l i hi h th

Ne g lig e nt hir

ing c la ims hing e on whe the r:

– T

he e mploye r kne w or should ha ve known p y tha t the e x- offe nde r, if pla c e d in the spe c ific job, pose d a fore se e a ble risk of ha rm to

• the rs ba se d on his prior c rime s

– T

he c rime a g a inst the pla intiff wa s re a sona bly T he c rime a g a inst the pla intiff wa s re a sona bly fore se e a ble from the e x- offe nde r's prior c rime s

34

General Principles General Principles

T

he fore se e a bilit of the ha rm a na l sis looks to

T

he fore se e a bility of the ha rm a na lysis looks to whe the r the c urre nt c rime re se mble s the prior c rime suc h tha t the e mploye r wa s on notic e of c rime suc h tha t the e mploye r wa s on notic e of the pote ntia l risk ba se d on the e mploye e ’s prope nsity for the pa rtic ula r type of c rimina l prope nsity for the pa rtic ula r type of c rimina l be ha vior

M

t l i f bilit did t

Most c a se s a na lyzing fore se e a bility did not

c onside r a t a ll the a g e of the c onvic tion a t the ti f hi time of hire

35

Barton v. Whataburger (TX, 2009) 2009)

E

mplo e e kille d d r ing botc he d robbe r b

E

mploye e kille d during botc he d robbe r y by ma na g e r a nd c o- c onspira tor

CBC on ma na g e r a t time of hire

– One - c ounty se a rc h g oing ba c k 7 ye a rs

CBC re porte d ba c k “c le a r” Ma na g e r ha d a 9 e a r old fe lon c on ic tion for Ma na g e r ha d a 9 ye a r old fe lony c onvic tion for

de a ling c oc a ine a nd a re c e nt fe lony c onvic tion for non pa yme nt of c hild support for non- pa yme nt of c hild support

36

Barton v. Whataburger (TX, 2009) 2009)

 He ld no c a usa tion be c a use the ma na g e r’s  He ld, no c a usa tion, be c a use the ma na g e r’s

pa rtic ipa tion in a n a g g ra va te d robbe ry le a ding to murde r wa s not re a sona bly fore se e a ble from his y prior c rime s

– Se lling c oc a ine a nd fa iling to pa y c hild support do

g g not “inhe re ntly re quire ” viole nc e or the ft, “e sse ntia l ing re die nts of a g g ra va te d robbe ry

 Note d tha t c rimina l c ourts ha ve a c knowle dg e d the

“stre e t- le ve l” c onne c tion be twe e n drug s, we a pons a nd viole nc e but re je c te d this “ste re otypic a l c onne c tion” viole nc e , but re je c te d this ste re otypic a l c onne c tion a s a ba sis for finding fore se e a bility

37

Barton v. Whataburger (TX, 2009) 2009)

Inte re sting is the disse nt from the orde r de n ing Inte re sting is the disse nt from the orde r de nying

e n ba nc re vie w

– E

mpha size d te stimony from the pla intiff’s e xpe rt tha t industry sta nda rd re quire d a CBC for a ll c ountie s of re side nc e

– Wha ta burg e r limite d the CBC due to c ost

Wha ta burg e r limite d the CBC due to c ost

– Wha ta burg e r’s supplie r ha d e a rlie r note d it c ould e a sily a nd

c he a ply e xpa nd the CBC

– Re je c te d de sc ription of the c onne c tion be twe e n drug de a ling

a nd c rime a s me re ly “ste re otypic a l,” sa ying it is “quite re a l” Re a sona ble to infe r tha t drug de a le r ma y be willing to c ommit

– Re a sona ble to infe r tha t drug de a le r ma y be willing to c ommit

• the r c rime s for fina nc ia l g a in

38

Summary of Key Points Summary of Key Points

39

Latest Scholarship Latest Scholarship

• Prof. Sha wn Bushwa y,

Univ a t Alba ny

• Univ. a t Alba ny

40

Overview Overview

Ri k

di ti i i i l

Risk pre dic tion c ommon in c rimina l

justic e / c riminolog y

Ne w re se a rc h re sponding to que stion of

“time to re de mption” for e mploye rs time to re de mption for e mploye rs

E

x- offe nde rs do be c ome re de e me d

– Re se a rc h not re fine d e noug h to g ive

a c tua ria l ta ble s a c ua a a b e s

41

Social Science Research Social Science Research

 R

idi i / D i t

 Re c idivism/ De sista nc e

– Ge ndre a u, Pa ul, T

ra c y L ittle , a nd Cla ire Gog g in. 1996. A me ta - a na lysis of the pre dic tors of a dult offe nde r re c idivism: Wha t works! Cr

iminology 34:575- 608.

D A Andre ws Ja me s Bonta a nd J Ste phe n Wormith

– D. A. Andr

e ws, Ja me s Bonta , a nd J. Ste phe n Wormith (2006). T he re c e nt pa st a nd ne a r future of risk a nd/ or ne e d a sse ssme nt. Cr

ime & De linque nc y 52: 7-27.

– Committe e on Community Supe rvision a nd De sista nc e

from Crime , Na tiona l Re se a rc h Counc il (2007) Par

• le ,

D i t f C i d C it I t ti De sistanc e fr

• m Cr

ime and Community Inte gr ation

42

Key Predictors Key Predictors

A Ag e

– At time of most re c e nt offe nse – At time of first offe nse

C i i l i d

Cr

imina l History Re c ord

– Numbe r of prior c onvic tions

p

– T

ime sinc e la st c onvic tion

– NOT

c rime type

43

Ag e Crime Curve

44

Trajectories Not P d t i d Predetermined

D

i f t tt

Dyna mic fa c tors c a n ma tte r

– Soc ia l c ontrol (John L

a ub, NIJ Dire c tor ) ( )

• E

mplo yme nt

• Ma rria g e
• Ma rria g e

– Cog nitive Be ha viora l

• Pro -so c ia l o rie nta tio n
• Pe rspe c tive o n future

45

Social Science Meets E pl t S i Employment Screening

E

xpe rt T e stimony in E l v. SE PT A (p.29)

“it is impossible to pre dic t with a re a sona ble  it is impossible to pre dic t with a re a sona ble

de g re e of a c c ura c y whic h c rimina ls will re c idiva te ” re c idiva te

“ some one with a c onvic tion for a viole nt c rime

is more like ly tha n some one without one to is more like ly tha n some one without one to c ommit a future viole nt c rime irre spe c tive of how re mote in time the c onvic tion is” how re mote in time the c onvic tion is

46

Skeptical Response Skeptical Response

T

hi i t t th t i d th t

T

his is not to sa y tha t we a re c onvinc e d tha t SE PT A’s e xpe rt re ports a re ironc la d in the b t t H d h (E l) hi d t a bstra c t. … Ha d he (E l) hire d a n e xpe rt who te stifie d tha t the re is time a t whic h a f i i l i l lik l forme r c rimina l is no long e r a ny more like ly to re c idiva te tha n the a ve ra g e pe rson, the n the re would be a fa c tua l que stion for the jury to re solve (E l v. Se pta , 2007, p.34).”

47

Question = Research Question Research

R

h i C i i l J ti S t

Re se a rc h in Cr

imina l Justic e Syste m

Wha t is “r

e a sona ble a c c ur a c y”? a s e a so a b e a c c u a c y ?

– Se e a lso ne g lig e nt hiring .

Short te rm

– L

a ng a n P a nd D L e vin (2002) Re c idivism of L a ng a n, P. a nd D. L e vin (2002) Re c idivism of

Pr isone r s Re le ase d in 1994.

48

Research Post El v. SEPTA Research Post El v. SEPTA

 Kurlyc he k Me g a n C Robe rt Bra me a nd Sha wn D Bushwa y 2006  Kurlyc he k, Me g a n C., Robe rt Bra me , a nd Sha wn D. Bushwa y. 2006.

Sc a rle t le tte rs a nd re c idivism: Doe s a n old c rimina l re c ord pre dic t future offe nding ? Criminolog y a nd Public Polic y 5: 483- 522.

 Kurlyc he k, Me g a n C., Robe rt Bra me , a nd Sha wn D. Bushwa y. 2007.

E nduring risk: Old c rimina l re c ords a nd pre dic tion of future c rimina l involve me nt. Crime a nd De linque nc y 53:64- 83.

 Blumste in, Alfre d a nd Kiminori Na ka mura . 2009. Re de mption in the

pre se nc e of wide spre a d c rimina l ba c kg round c he c ks. Criminolog y 47:327- 360 47:327- 360.

 Soothill, Ke ith, a nd Bria n F

ra nc is. 2009. Whe n do e x- offe nde rs be c ome like non- offe nde rs? Howa rd Journa l of Crimina l Justic e 48:373- 387.

49

Key Screening Question Key Screening Question

H

f ff di d it

How ma ny ye a rs of non- offe nding doe s it

ta ke be fore a n e x- offe nde r looks like a non- offe nde r in te rms of risk of offe nding ?

– Ha za rd ra te s

Ha za rd ra te s

T

ime to “Re de mption” (Blumste in)

Should be “e mployme nt pe rforma nc e ”?

50

51

52

Conclusions From My Research Conclusions From My Research

N

ff d d t h i k

Non offe nde rs do not ha ve ze ro r

isk

T

ime sinc e la st offe nse ma tte rs e s c e a s o e se a e s

10 ye a rs of non offe nding is a me a ning ful

i l b t d ti f fi t ti sig na l a bout re de mption for first time youthful offe nde rs

Ne e d more re a listic / la rg e r da ta se ts

i ( )

– Se e Blumste in a nd Na ka mura (2009)

53

54

Conclusions From Blumstein and N k Nakamura

Da ta from Ne

York Sta te Re positor

Da ta from Ne w York Sta te Re pository Sa me ba sic pa tte rn Blumste in a dvoc a ting for polic y c ha ng e s But c utpoints va ry But c utpoints va ry

– No non- offe nde r g roup

• Use s g e ne ra l po pula tio n a nd tho se “first time a rre sts”

Wha t a bout olde r/ re pe a t offe nde rs?

55

Important Caveats Important Caveats

All

h d ith fi t ti

All re se a rc h done with young , first time

• ffe nde rs

Pre limina ry re se a rc h on Dutc h da ta

C fi 7 10 d ti ti f

– Confirm 7- 10 ye a r re de mption time s for

young first time offe nde rs

– Re de mption time is le ss for olde r offe nde rs – T

hose with ma ny offe nse s ne ve r c onve rg e T hose with ma ny offe nse s ne ve r c onve rg e

56

Wrap Up Wrap Up

S

th i

Synthe sis Solutions

So u o s

57

Questions? Questions?

58

T HANK YOU T HANK YOU

Rod F lie g e l, E sq.

L ittle r Me nde lso n, P.C.

Robe rt Pic ke ll

Hire Rig ht I nc Hire Rig ht, I nc ., I rvine , CA

• Prof. Sha wn Bushwa y
• Univ. a t Alb a ny

Se pte mb e r 8 2010 Se pte mb e r 8, 2010

59