What is the impact of ban-the-box on housing discrimination?

Last registered on December 26, 2020
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
What is the impact of ban-the-box on housing discrimination?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0005240
Initial registration date
January 07, 2020

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
January 10, 2020, 11:41 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
December 26, 2020, 1:28 AM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region
Minnesota

Primary Investigator

Name
Marina Gorsuch
Affiliation
St. Catherine University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Deborah Rho
PI Affiliation
University of St. Thomas
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2020-01-01
End date
2021-06-01
Keywords
Labor
Additional Keywords
Discrimination
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
In September 2019, the Minneapolis City Council passed a law restricting the use of background checks and credit history in rental housing applications; the new policy goes into effect in June 2020 (Evans 2019). This policy is intended to reduce barriers to housing for formerly incarcerated people and reduce discrimination against people of color in the housing application process. However, previous research has found that similar ban-the-box policies for employment applications increases discrimination against young Black and Latino men (Doleac and Hansen 2016; Agan and Starr 2017). This increase in discrimination may occur because employers have less information on the criminal records of individual job applicants, and, as a result, rely more heavily on racial stereotypes when making decisions. This leads directly to our research question: How does limiting background checks for potential tenants affect racial discrimination in the housing market? Answering this question is essential for developing effective policies to reduce barriers facing formerly incarcerated people and people of color in their search for housing.

To answer this question, we are implementing a field experiment to collect data on housing discrimination in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, before and after the implementation of this new policy. We are implementing “difference in difference” evaluation of the policy - comparing changes in discrimination in Minneapolis (where the policy will be implemented) to changes in discrimination in St. Paul (where the new policy will not be implemented). This will identify the impact of the new policy on housing discrimination.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Gorsuch, Marina and Deborah Rho. 2020. "What is the impact of ban-the-box on housing discrimination?." AEA RCT Registry. December 26. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.5240-1.1
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
To examine the impact of ban-the-box on housing discrimination, we are conducting an experiment in which we send email inquiries from fictitious applicants to real landlords in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area who post vacancies for their rental units online. We began data collection in January 2020 and will collect data for five months prior to the implementation of the new policy and continue for at least six months after the policy goes into effect. We will track which applicants the landlords respond positively to via email or phone call. This style of study is known as a “correspondence study” or an “audit study” and is a commonly used method to test discrimination in the labor market (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004) and the housing market (Andersson, Jakobsson, and Kotsadam 2012; Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt 2010; Friedman et al 2013).

We manipulate the name in the email and email address to indicate the potential tenant’s sex and whether the applicant is Somali American, African American, or white American. The Somali American names were selected from the CDC’s list of popular Somali first names. To select African American and white American names, we chose names that are racially distinct and pre-tested them to select names that clearly signal race and do not signal different socioeconomic status (Levitt and Dubner 2005; Gaddis 2015). Each email to the landlord includes an email address to contact the applicant. We use a Python program designed for correspondence studies that creates thousands of email text with these elements randomized (Lahey and Beasley 2009).

Intervention Start Date
2020-01-01
Intervention End Date
2021-06-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
We will examine whether landlords’ response rates to these applicants differ by perceived race of the potential tenants. While any individual potential tenant may be a better fit than another individual, on average all applicants are constructed to be equivalent - any difference in average response rates across perceived race can be interpreted as discrimination. We will test whether discrimination changes as a result of the implementation of ban-the-box. If discrimination in Minneapolis changes after the policy goes into effect, while there are no changes (or smaller changes) in St. Paul, the difference in the change in discrimination is the impact of the new policy. This evaluation method is known as a “difference in difference” - by tracking discrimination in areas unaffected by the policy, we are able to account for any broader changes in discrimination that are occurring separately from the new policy.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
. We will test whether discrimination changes as a result of the implementation of ban-the-box. If discrimination in Minneapolis changes after the policy goes into effect, while there are no changes (or smaller changes) in St. Paul, the difference in the change in discrimination is the impact of the new policy. This evaluation method is known as a “difference in difference” - by tracking discrimination in areas unaffected by the policy, we are able to account for any broader changes in discrimination that are occurring separately from the new policy.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Computer
Randomization Unit
Landlord
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
2000 landlords
Sample size: planned number of observations
6000 applications sent
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
3 applications per landlord
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
St. Catherine University
IRB Approval Date
2019-09-11
IRB Approval Number
N/A
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials