CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 399Gender, Labor, and Family DynamicsCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisSocial Policy and Reform Studies

Deciding to discipline: Race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform.

Schram, Sanford F., Soss, Joe, Fording, Richard C., Houser, Linda·2009·American Sociological Review
DOI 10.1177/000312240907400304
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Welfare sanctions are financial penalties applied to individuals who fail to comply with welfare program rules. Their widespread use reflects a turn toward disciplinary approaches to poverty management. In this article, we investigate how implicit racial biases and discrediting social markers interact to shape officials' decisions to impose sanctions. We present experimental evidence based on hypothetical vignettes that case managers are more likely to recommend sanctions for Latina and black clients—but not white clients—when discrediting markers are present. We triangulate these findings with analyses of state administrative data. Our results for Latinas are mixed, but we find consistent evidence that the probability of a sanction rises significantly when a discrediting marker (i.e., a prior sanction for noncompliance) is attached to a black rather than a white welfare client. Overall, our study clarifies how racial minorities, especially African Americans, are more likely to be punished for deviant behavior in the new world of disciplinary welfare provision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/000312240907400304

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A vast body of literature in social science provides theory and empirical evidence for the existence of discriminatory decision-making rooted in subtle and unconscious cognitive mechanisms.

    “However, a vast body of literature in social science provides us with theory and empirical evidence for the existence of discriminatory decision-making that are also rooted in subtle and unconscious cognitive mechanisms (e.g., Schram et al. 2009).”

    From Human–AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision Making: “Automation Bias” and “Selective Adherence” to Algorithmic Advice (2023) · cites this paper as Schram et al. 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schram, S. F., Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Houser, L.
Affiliations
  • Bryn Mawr College (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Schram, Sanford F.
ORCID
Venue
American Sociological Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2009-06
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
398-422
ISSN
  • 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-8271
DOI
10.1177/000312240907400304
OpenAlex
W2084159512
Cited by
399
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 16
FWCI
37.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
Keywords
welfare sanctions, welfare reform, racial bias, implicit bias, case managers, African American clients, poverty management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review