When reality is different than passionately held assumptions held by the Mandarin class

From Ban-the-Box Laws: Fair and Effective? by Robert Kaestner & Xufei Wang.  From the Abstract.

Ban-the-box (BTB) laws are a widely used public policy rooted in employment law related to unnecessarily exclusionary hiring practices. BTB laws are intended to improve the employment opportunities of those with criminal backgrounds by giving them a fair chance during the hiring process. Prior research on the effectiveness of these laws in meeting their objective is limited and inconclusive. In this article, we extend the prior literature in two ways: we expand the years of analysis to a period of rapid expansion of BTB laws and we examine different types of BTB laws depending on the employers affected (e.g., public sector). Results indicate that BTB laws, any type of BTB law or BTB laws covering different types of employers, have no systematic or statistically significant association with employment of low-educated men, both young and old and across racial and ethnic groups. We speculate that the lack of effectiveness of BTB laws stems from the difficulty in enforcing such laws and already high rates of employer willingness to hire those with criminal histories.

This is a more positive outcome than most of the research I have seen on Ban the Box outcomes.  Most that I have seen have found that the policy is actually detrimental to those it was intended to help.  It is one of those unintended consequences that illuminate the gap between good intentions and reality.  Most the research I have seen has found a 5-20% reduction in hiring among those with criminal records when BTB is implemented.

It appears that employers, when stripped of the ability to understand the nature and context of the crimes committed, end up being more cautious and more restrictive of employment opportunities to those with criminal records and estimated to be likely to have a criminal record.

There wasn't a problem that needed solving (labor demand was already strong) and the solution as implemented did not have any impact (at best.)  Advocates were vociferous that there was a real problem, and that the problem was at least in part due to racism with a disparate impact on African-Americans.  

Apparently, employee candidates were not being discriminated against in the first place and the solution had no beneficial impact.  All that time, all that political energy, all that money, and . . . Nothing!