Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-fz4lj Total loading time: 0.219 Render date: 2021-07-25T07:00:37.023Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Locked Out of College: When Admissions Bureaucrats Do and Do Not Discriminate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2021

Jacob R. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
Hanno Hilbig
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

How does an individual's criminal record shape interactions with the state and society? This article presents evidence from a nationwide field experiment in the United States, which shows that prospective applicants with criminal records are about 5 percentage points less likely to receive information from college admission offices. However, this bias does not extend to race: there is no difference in response rates to Black and White applicants. The authors further show that bias is all but absent in public bureaucracies, as discrimination against formerly incarcerated applicants is driven by private schools. Examining why bias is stronger for private colleges, the study demonstrates that the private–public difference persists even after accounting for college selectivity, socio-economic composition and school finances. Moving beyond the measurement of bias, an intervention designed to reduce discrimination is evaluated: whether an email from an advocate mitigates bias associated with a criminal record. No evidence is found that advocate endorsements decrease bureaucratic bias.

Type
Letter
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Bastedo, M and Gumport, P (2003) Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in US public higher education. Higher Education 46(3), 341359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Y and Hochberg, Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 57(1), 289300.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M and Mullainathan, S (2004) Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review 94(4), 9911013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, EP et al. (2012) The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: results from the H&R block fafsa experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(3), 12051242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, TG et al. (2011) Incarceration, education and transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice 39(4), 355365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Hilbig JR, Hanno, H (2020), “Replication Data for: Locked Out of College: When Admissions Bureaucrats Do and Do Not Discriminate”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WAYA0D, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:VzVgpwcL2bT3vIJoSjjfuQ== [fileUNF]Google Scholar
Butler, D and Crabtree, C (2017) Moving beyond measurement: adapting audit studies to test bias-reducing interventions. Journal of Experimental Political Science 4(1), 5767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chetty, R et al. (2017) Mobility report cards: the role of colleges in intergenerational mobility. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from https://www.nber.org/papers/w23618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, A (2018) Avoiding post-treatment bias in audit experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 6(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, M (2017) How responsive are political elites? A meta-analysis of experiments on public officials. Journal of Experimental Political Science 4(3), 241254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deming, D and Dynarski, S (2010) College Aid. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 283302.Google Scholar
Diaz-Serrano, L and Meix-Llop, E (2016) Do schools discriminate against homosexual parents? Evidence from a randomized correspondence experiment. Economics of Education Review 53, 133142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN and Shafranek, RM (2020) The intersection of racial and partisan discrimination evidence from a correspondence study of four-year colleges. The Journal of Politics. Available from https://doi.org/10.1086/708776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynarski, S et al. (2018) Closing the gap: the effect of a targeted, tuition-free promise on college choices of high-achieving, low-income students. Working Paper 25349. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from https://www.nber.org/papers/w25349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, K and Glick, D (2017) Does race affect access to government services? An experiment exploring street-level bureaucrats and access to public housing. American Journal of Political Science 61(1), 100116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Gaddis, M (2014) Discrimination in the credential society: an audit study of race and college selectivity in the labor market. Social Forces 93(4), 14511479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemker, J and Rink, A (2017) Multiple dimensions of bureaucratic discrimination: evidence from German welfare offices. American Journal of Political Science 61(4), 786803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjalmarsson, R, Holmlund, H and Lindquist, MJ (2015) The effect of education on criminal convictions and incarceration: causal evidence from microdata. The Economic Journal 125(587), 12901326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoxby, C and Turner, S (2015) What high-achieving low-income students know about college. American Economic Review 105(5), 514517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoxby, CM (2009) The changing selectivity of American colleges. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(4), 95118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacus, S, King, G and Porro, G (2012) Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis 20(1), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jilke, S, Van Dooren, W and Rys, S (2018) Discrimination and administrative burden in public service markets: does a public–private difference exist? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28(3), 423439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasswell, HD (1936) Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Whittlesey House.Google Scholar
Manza, J and Uggen, C (2006) Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Studies in Crime and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milkman, KL, Akinola, M and Chugh, D (2015) What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(6), 16781712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niskanen, W (1968) The peculiar economics of bureaucracy. The American Economic Review 58(2), 293305.Google Scholar
Owens, M and Smith, A (2012) Deviants and democracy: punitive policy designs and the social rights of felons as citizens. American Politics Research 40(3), 531567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pager, D (2003) The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology 108(5), 937975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pager, D, Bonikowski, B and Western, B (2009) Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: a field experiment. American Sociological Review 74(5), 777799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, T (1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49(1), 6585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, A et al. (2015) Boxed out: criminal history screening and college application attrition. Technical report. Brooklyn, NY: Center for Community Alternatives. Available from http://communityalternatives.org/pdf/publications/BoxedOutullReport.pdf.Google Scholar
Stewart, R and Uggen, C (2020) Criminal records and college admissions: a modified experimental audit. Criminology 58(1):156188. Available from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9125.12229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 11241131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weaver, V and Lerman, A (2010) Political consequences of the carceral state. American Political Science Review 104(4), 817833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, A, Nathan, N and Faller, J (2015) What do I need to vote? Bureaucratic discretion and discrimination by local election officials. American Political Science Review 109(1), 129142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Brown and Hilbig supplementary material

Brown and Hilbig supplementary material

Download Brown and Hilbig supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 299 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Brown and Hilbig Dataset

Link
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Locked Out of College: When Admissions Bureaucrats Do and Do Not Discriminate
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Locked Out of College: When Admissions Bureaucrats Do and Do Not Discriminate
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Locked Out of College: When Admissions Bureaucrats Do and Do Not Discriminate
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *