Bill Overview
Title: Fair Chance Improvement Act
Description: This bill revises provisions regarding the prohibition on federal contractors, including defense contractors, inquiring about applicants' criminal histories prior to conditional offers of employment. The bill allows the Department of Labor to investigate compliance by a contractor by conducting a compliance evaluation. Currently, Labor investigates compliance pursuant to an applicant's complaint. The bill also expands the sanctions that Labor may impose on a contractor with more than one violation of the prohibition.
Sponsors: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals with criminal histories applying to federal contractors
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The target population includes individuals with criminal histories seeking employment with federal contractors.
- Federal contractors employ a significant number of people across various sectors, potentially reaching millions of job seekers.
- The legislation intends to offer fairer employment opportunities to those who have a criminal record by revising when such information can be accessed during the hiring process.
- The Department of Labor's role in investigating and ensuring compliance expands, which could deter discriminatory hiring practices among federal contractors.
Reasoning
- The Fair Chance Improvement Act primarily impacts those with criminal histories seeking jobs with federal contractors by providing a fairer hiring process.
- The present simulation will include a mix of people affected by the policy at different levels to represent the population accurately.
- We will include participants who have different occupations, locations, and personal situations impacting how relevant the policy is to them.
- We will maintain a balance between providing enough detail for each interview and staying within budget considerations, focusing on impacts over a 20-year span.
Simulated Interviews
Warehouse Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will give me a better chance at getting a job without being judged by my past.
- It's a relief to know companies can't just dismiss my application without even getting to know me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who's been working hard to move past my mistakes, this bill is a big deal.
- I can finally apply for higher roles without immediate rejection based on an old mistake.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Job Seeker (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me some hope that my misdemeanor won't overshadow my skills and dedication.
- It feels like a real second chance, which is reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Construction Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, I might not get passed over for work just because of a mistake I made a decade ago.
- Hopefully, this policy makes contractors more willing to give guys like me a shot.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Project Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a good initiative but personally doesn't change much for me since my conviction is sealed.
- I'll make sure our company understands the new rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
HR Specialist (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems focused on fairness; not much changes for me but will affect my workload.
- It's more important to find the right people regardless of their past.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Ex-offender (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels like hope is on the horizon for actually getting considered for jobs I apply to.
- I've had resumes tossed out just for checking that box. Maybe now I can interview more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Federal Contractor Employee (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've always seen our company follow fair hiring practices, so this will solidify our commitments.
- It emphasizes fairness, which I support fully.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Paralegal (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for supporting people who might have turned a new leaf.
- I'm curious about how effectively it'll be enforced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Community Worker (Boston, MA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be life-changing for the people I work with.
- It's reassuring to see legal changes supporting the rights of these individuals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Necessary budget allocations for the Department of Labor to enforce compliance.
- Potential for legal challenges from federal contractors regarding sanctions or compliance measures.
- Public perception and the social value of increasing employment opportunities for individuals with criminal histories.