To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
2 results ✕ Clear filters

“Something Works” in U.S. Jails: Misconduct and Recidivism Effects of the IGNITE Program

Quarterly Journal of Economics 2025 140(2), 1367-1415 open access
A long-standing and influential view in U.S. correctional policy is that “nothing works” when it comes to rehabilitating incarcerated individuals. We revisit this hypothesis by studying an innovative law-enforcement-led program launched in the county jail of Flint, MI: Inmate Growth Naturally and Intentionally through Education (IGNITE). We develop an instrumental variables approach to estimate the effects of IGNITE exposure, leveraging quasi-random court delays that cause individuals to spend more time in jail before and after the program’s launch. Holding time in jail fixed, we find that one additional month of IGNITE exposure reduces weekly misconduct in jail by 25% and three-month recidivism by 24%, with the recidivism effects growing over time. Surveys of staff and community members, along with administrative test-score records and within-jail text messages, suggest that cultural change and improved literacy and numeracy scores are contributing mechanisms.

Systemic Discrimination: Theory and Measurement

Quarterly Journal of Economics 2025 140(3), 1743-1799 open access
Economists often measure discrimination as disparities arising from the direct effects of group identity. We develop new tools to model and measure systemic discrimination, capturing how discrimination in other decisions indirectly contributes to disparities. A novel experimental design, the iterated audit, identifies systemic discrimination. We illustrate these new tools in two field experiments. The first experiment shows how racial discrimination can accumulate across multiple rounds of hiring through the interaction of two forces: greater discrimination against inexperienced workers, which affects the opportunity to obtain experience, and high subsequent returns to experience. The second experiment shows how gender-based differences in the language of recommendation letters can translate into systemic gender discrimination in STEM hiring. We discuss how our findings qualify previous results on direct discrimination and how our tools can be used to target policy interventions.