Bill Overview
Title: Fair Hiring in Banking Act
Description: This bill generally exempts certain individuals convicted of a crime from requirements related to employment by an insured depository institution or an insured credit union. Specifically, written consent from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration is not required for an institution to hire an individual convicted of a criminal offense involving dishonesty, a breach of trust, or money laundering 7 years after the individual meets sentencing requirements; for an individual who committed the offense while under the age of 21, 30 months after the individual meets sentencing requirements; or if the conviction was pardoned, sealed, or expunged. However, written consent is required for specified financial crimes (including theft by a bank employee) or for any person seeking to become a director or senior executive officer.
Sponsors: Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]
Target Audience
Population: people in the banking sector workforce with past convictions related to dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering who will be eligible for employment after meeting certain conditions
Estimated Size: 750000
- The legislation pertains to hiring practices in the banking sector, thus primarily impacting individuals with criminal convictions seeking employment in this sector.
- Data from the U.S. shows that a significant number of people have criminal records. Estimates suggest that 70 to 100 million Americans have criminal records, but not all are in the banking industry or convicted of relevant crimes.
- The Act specifically affects those convicted of crimes involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering, narrowing the group significantly.
- Around 30% of the global population is under the age of 21, and some may fall into the age criteria specified.
- The bill has specific criteria regarding when convictions are pardoned, sealed, or expunged, affecting eligibility and thus the population affected.
- Global data on criminal records similar to that of the U.S. might not be available, but the global banking sector workforce can be deducted for those specific cases.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals with past convictions wanting to work in banking and financial institutions. It grants these individuals better access to employment by removing certain barriers after a defined period.
- The estimated population likely to benefit from this policy are people with relevant past criminal records who meet sentencing requirements. Out of approximately 750,000 potentially eligible individuals, not all will apply for or desire banking jobs.
- The cost of this policy implementation is balanced by the cost of regulatory changes regarding hiring practices. The program will most likely start by affecting a small number of individuals who immediately meet the criteria, gradually increasing over years.
- The impact on individuals will vary. Some might experience a significant change in wellbeing due to improved employment prospects, while others might see little to no change if they don't pursue banking jobs.
- The policy is time-sensitive; its impact is based on timeframes post-conviction, meeting requirements, and pardons or expungements.
- Individuals affected span various ages when convicted, but younger people have different time frames (30 months) compared to older adults. Hence, the population and impact will be disparate across ages due to differing timelines.
Simulated Interviews
Former retail worker, seeking opportunities in finance (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives people like me another chance after our mistakes.
- It feels good to know that after years of working on myself, more opportunities will be open.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Account manager at a small credit union (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about hiring individuals with a criminal background, but this policy makes me consider the potential they're not using.
- I'll need to adjust hiring protocols to be fair and efficient.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Financial Analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This job limitation has been a shadow over possible promotions.
- The policy finally allows sealed records not to overshadow opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Unemployed, looking to re-enter the workforce (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard sitting at home, knowing I have skills I can't use.
- If jobs open up, I'm eager to prove my worth in the workforce again.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Part-time student (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don’t know yet if I want to work in banking, but knowing entry isn’t barred is a relief.
- This future potential changes how I view my options post-graduation.
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 | 9 | 8 |
Bank manager, soon to retire (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen rules adapt over my career, and each time we worried initially, things turned out alright.
- This policy will challenge us to balance trust and second chances realistically.
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 |
Teller at a national bank (Detroit, MI)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new act has me worried about how trustworthy new employees would be.
- I need to inform myself better about the checks on criminal backgrounds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Ex-accountant, currently in gig economy (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The options are limited until I can actually work in banking again. This policy changes that slightly, but I am skeptical.
- Plenty of time has passed, and I hope it provides real workplace access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community college student (Austin, TX)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved that my past mistake won’t completely shape my future career.
- If I move towards finance, this policy means I won’t be immediately rejected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Senior financial consultant (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing I can advance without my past being discussed is amazing.
- Financial jobs come with immense trust, and this act seems to re-balance such trust once more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $1800000 (Low: $900000, High: $2700000)
Year 3: $1600000 (Low: $800000, High: $2400000)
Year 5: $1500000 (Low: $750000, High: $2250000)
Year 10: $1500000 (Low: $750000, High: $2250000)
Year 100: $1500000 (Low: $750000, High: $2250000)
Key Considerations
- The population affected by the bill potentially faces stigma in the job market, which this bill seeks to address by removing certain hiring barriers.
- Most impacts are indirect costs of execution of hiring procedures rather than visible costs.
- Long-term impacts on criminal justice reform and societal attitude towards re-integrating former convicts into the workforce, which may lead to broader economic benefits.