U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Policy Guidance: A Mental Health Impact Assessment Predicted impacts on the mental health of residents of Chicago’s Englewood community, due to changes in federal policy guidance on the use of arrest records in employment decisions Primary Authors Special thanks to: Institute on Social Exclusion (ISE) Faculty Contributors Adler School of Professional Psychology Vida Dyson, Ph.D. and Nataka Moore, Psy.D. Lynn Todman, Ph.D., Principal Investigator ISE Staff Contributors J. Sherrod Taylor, J.D. Sherri Boyle, B.A. and Christopher Holliday, Ph.D., M.P.H. Tiffany McDowell, Ph.D. ISE Student Contributors Mark Driscoll, Ph.D. Jared Berger, M.A., BSc (Hons); Brittany J. Coleman, Daniel Cooper, Ph.D. M.A. Candidate; Ronnie Doss, B.A.; Tiffany Dulamal; Eunha Kim, Ph.D. Nicholas Fredrick, M.A.; Andrea Goddard; Melissa M. Prusko; Jason R. Reynolds, M.A.; and Abby Willey Committees Acknowledgements The MHIA Steering Committee met monthly and comprised The Institute on Social Exclusion at the Adler School of staff from the Institute on Social Exclusion at the Adler Professional Psychology would like to thank the residents School of Professional Psychology, as well as represen- and leaders of Chicago’s Englewood community, as well tatives from the Adler School’s Institute on Public Safety as Teamwork Englewood, Imagine Englewood IF, Resident and Social Justice, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Association of Greater Englewood (R.A.G.E.), Kennedy- Prevention, Safer Foundation, Sargent Shriver National King City College of Chicago, Expanded Anti-Violence Ini- Center on Poverty Law, Teamwork Englewood, Imagine tiative (E.A.V.I.), Greater Englewood Block Club Coalition, Englewood IF, Englewood Community Health Clinic, Chi- St. Bernard Hospital, Cure Violence (formerly CeaseFire) cago Department of Public Health, Illinois Department of Chicago, and the U.S. Bank-Englewood Branch for par- Public Health, Northern Illinois University—Public Health ticipation in the MHIA. Program, University of Illinois at Chicago—School of Thank you, also, to state and local legislators whose sup- Public Health, and the Illinois Department of Employment port helped ensure the success of the project. Security Re-Entry Employment Services Program. Also in attendance were external project consultants, which Finally, we thank Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the included Human Impact Partners, Millennia Consulting, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Pierce Family Founda- Varga and Associates, Stewart Communications, and tion for their financial support of the MHIA. faculty from the University of California—Berkeley Schools of Public Health and Urban Planning. The MHIA Advisory Committee met quarterly and included For more information, please contact: representatives of the Robert Wood Johnson/Pew Charitable Lynn Todman, Ph.D. Trusts Health Impact Project, Neighborhood Housing Ser- Institute on Social Exclusion vices of Chicago, Inc., Teamwork Englewood, Chicago De- Adler School of Professional Psychology partment of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh—School adler.edu (312) 662-4000 of Medicine, and the Public Health Agency of Canada. It also included a London-based specialist who consults on mental health issues to the World Health Organization. Adler School of Professional Psychology, Institute on Social Exclusion. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Policy Guidance: A Mental Health Impact Assessment. April 2013. 2 Adler School Institute on Social Exclusion: Mental Health Impact Assessment Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 4 II. Glossary ................................................................................................................. 16 III. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 18 IV. Policy Context ........................................................................................................ 20 V. About HIA and MHIA .............................................................................................. 22 VI. The Context for this MHIA ..................................................................................... 24 VII. Screening The Decision to Focus on the U.S. EEOC Policy Guidance on the Use of Arrest Records in Employment Decisions ......................................... 27 VIII. Scoping Creating a Workplan for the MHIA ............................................................ 31 IX. Assessment Part I: The Methods............................................................................ 35 X. Assessment Part II: The Heart of the MHIA ............................................................ 40 XI. Assessment Part III: The Impact Predictions and Supporting Evidence ................ 47 XII. Recommendations ................................................................................................. 67 XIII. Reporting ................................................................................................................ 69 XIV. Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 71 XV. Limitations .............................................................................................................. 73 XVI. Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 74 XVII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 75 XVIII. Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 77 XIX. Appendices ............................................................................................................. 82 Adler School Institute on Social Exclusion: Mental Health Impact Assessment 3 I. Executive Summary BACKGROUND In 1990, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) enacted federal policy guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (referred to as Policy Guidance) to help employers, employ- ees, and job applicants understand and comply with legislation that was intended to eliminate unlawful discrimination in employment (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2012a). Over time, many people, including members of the EEOC, proportionally high unemployment rates experienced by recognized a need to amend the Policy Guidance, par- these two populations (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). ticularly as it related to issues such as the use of arrest Employment discrimination has been linked to adverse records in employment decisions. mental health effects, including anxiety, depression and The disproportionality of arrest rates in the United States stress (Hammond, Gillen, & Yen, 2010). underscores the importance of clarifying the Policy Guid- ance. Arrest rates for African Americans and Latinos are Consequently, changes in the U.S. EEOC’s Policy staggeringly high, at two to three times their proportions Guidance that help to mitigate employment dis- of the national population. For instance, in 2010, African crimination based on the use of arrest records Americans, who accounted for approximately 14 percent could have important implications for the mental of the general U.S. population, accounted for 28 percent health and well-being of vulnerable populations, of all arrests (EEOC, 2012a). such as African Americans and Latinos. In 2008, Latinos were arrested for federal drug charges at a rate of approximately three times their proportion of the general population (EEOC, 2012a). A record of arrest does Yet, prior to the Mental Health Impact Assessment (MHIA) not necessarily mean a conviction occurred. Research described in this report, impacts to mental health were undertaken as part of this project suggests that following not considered as part of the EEOC’s deliberations on its arrest, many African Americans and Latinos likely have employment policy revision. no subsequent charges or convictions. Despite this, ar- ] rest records are still often used as a basis of employment decisions, which results in exacerbating the already dis- In 2010, African Americans, who accounted for approximately 14% of the general U.S. population, accounted for 28% of all arrests. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2012 4 Adler School Institute on Social Exclusion: Mental Health Impact Assessment USE OF MHIA This report describes, in brief, the process and results of a Mental Health Impact Assessment (MHIA). MHIA is a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) that focuses explicitly on the mental health implications of public decisions. Like HIA, the fundamental goal of an MHIA is to ensure that health and health inequities are considered in public decision-making by using a process that engages the populations most likely to be impacted by those decisions. Through this six-step process, HIA and MHIA assess the potential impacts of proposed decisions (e.g., laws, policies, programs, or projects) on the social determinants of health and mental health. The social determinants of health are where people are “born, grow, live, work, and age (Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, 2008). THE SIX STEPS OF MHIA’S ARE AS FOLLOWS: Screening determines whether a proposal