New report highlights problematic use of criminal history records in college admissions
posted on: Tuesday, November 09, 2010
By Niki Jagpal
The Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) released recently a first of its kind report analyzing how colleges use applicants’ criminal history records in admissions. Here are some select findings from the survey:
- A majority of responding colleges (66 percent) collect this information though not all use it to screen applicants
- Nearly 40 percent of surveyed colleges do not collect this information, nor do they report any impact on campus safety because of this
- Although some two-thirds of respondents collect criminal history data, less than half them have written policies guiding their appropriate use in place, a situation further compounded by the fact that only 40 percent of staff at these colleges are trained on how to interpret these data.
- The range of convictions that are included as negative screens in college admissions is broad, covering misdemeanor convictions to drug and alcohol convictions to adjudication related to youth offenders.
The CCA report highlights several relevant factors when considering its findings: there is no established link between campus security and a student having a criminal record; the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, making screening anyone with a record out really problematic; racial bias is inherent in our justice system making this in CCA’s words a civil rights issue, and; our nation’s criminal history records are frequently incomplete or just inaccurate as reported by the U.S. Department of Justice.
It’s important to note when considering the issue of racial disparities in the criminal justice system that a disproportionate number of our citizens imprisoned currently comprise racial and ethnic minorities (60%). And for African American males in their 20’s, the figures a real cause for concern – one of every eight of this subpopulation is imprisoned on any given day. Lastly, the “war on drugs” also carries implicit racial bias, evidenced by the fact that three-fourths of convicted community members in this category are non-whites. As noted by the Sentencing Project’s report on the racial dynamics of the “war on drugs,” there is a large body of research demonstrating that racial disparities in arrests are largely attributable to differential treatment by law enforcement. As they note: “police agencies have frequently targeted drug law violations in low-income communities of color for enforcement operations, while substance abuse in communities with substantial resources is more like to be addressed as a family or public health problem.”
For the data analysis of our new report, Confronting Systemic Inequity in Education: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy, we looked at giving to vulnerable populations, including offenders and ex-offenders. Disappointingly, we found that only some 11 percent of education dollars granted out by foundations that gave at least $1 million from 2006-2008 was for the explicit intended benefit of historically disadvantaged groups.
When considering the new findings about the use of criminal histories to screen out certain individuals alongside our new report, it is clear that prioritizing this particular subgroup merits more targeted philanthropy if we’re to level the playing field in college admissions. As authors Kevin Welner and Amy Farley note, “grantmakers in education will have the most success in advancing equity and access if they focus a great deal of attention and funding on marginalized populations and if they do so by addressing systemic inequality.”
I agree with the CCA recommendation that “colleges and universities should refrain from collecting and using criminal justice information in the context of college admissions.” I also encourage education grantmakers to consider the findings of this report seriously: philanthropy can do much to alleviate the inequitable exclusion of certain populations from achieving the American dream of a college degree. Grantmakers can help not just by using a targeted approach, but also engaging these institutions or granting monies to ensure that criminal justice data are not used inappropriately in college admissions.
Niki Jagpal is research and policy director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Labels: Center for Community Alternatives, criminal justice system, education, High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy, offenders/ex-offenders, racial equity, social justice, targeted universalism
The Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) released recently a first of its kind report analyzing how colleges use applicants’ criminal history records in admissions. Here are some select findings from the survey:
- A majority of responding colleges (66 percent) collect this information though not all use it to screen applicants
- Nearly 40 percent of surveyed colleges do not collect this information, nor do they report any impact on campus safety because of this
- Although some two-thirds of respondents collect criminal history data, less than half them have written policies guiding their appropriate use in place, a situation further compounded by the fact that only 40 percent of staff at these colleges are trained on how to interpret these data.
- The range of convictions that are included as negative screens in college admissions is broad, covering misdemeanor convictions to drug and alcohol convictions to adjudication related to youth offenders.
The CCA report highlights several relevant factors when considering its findings: there is no established link between campus security and a student having a criminal record; the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, making screening anyone with a record out really problematic; racial bias is inherent in our justice system making this in CCA’s words a civil rights issue, and; our nation’s criminal history records are frequently incomplete or just inaccurate as reported by the U.S. Department of Justice.
It’s important to note when considering the issue of racial disparities in the criminal justice system that a disproportionate number of our citizens imprisoned currently comprise racial and ethnic minorities (60%). And for African American males in their 20’s, the figures a real cause for concern – one of every eight of this subpopulation is imprisoned on any given day. Lastly, the “war on drugs” also carries implicit racial bias, evidenced by the fact that three-fourths of convicted community members in this category are non-whites. As noted by the Sentencing Project’s report on the racial dynamics of the “war on drugs,” there is a large body of research demonstrating that racial disparities in arrests are largely attributable to differential treatment by law enforcement. As they note: “police agencies have frequently targeted drug law violations in low-income communities of color for enforcement operations, while substance abuse in communities with substantial resources is more like to be addressed as a family or public health problem.”
For the data analysis of our new report, Confronting Systemic Inequity in Education: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy, we looked at giving to vulnerable populations, including offenders and ex-offenders. Disappointingly, we found that only some 11 percent of education dollars granted out by foundations that gave at least $1 million from 2006-2008 was for the explicit intended benefit of historically disadvantaged groups.
When considering the new findings about the use of criminal histories to screen out certain individuals alongside our new report, it is clear that prioritizing this particular subgroup merits more targeted philanthropy if we’re to level the playing field in college admissions. As authors Kevin Welner and Amy Farley note, “grantmakers in education will have the most success in advancing equity and access if they focus a great deal of attention and funding on marginalized populations and if they do so by addressing systemic inequality.”
I agree with the CCA recommendation that “colleges and universities should refrain from collecting and using criminal justice information in the context of college admissions.” I also encourage education grantmakers to consider the findings of this report seriously: philanthropy can do much to alleviate the inequitable exclusion of certain populations from achieving the American dream of a college degree. Grantmakers can help not just by using a targeted approach, but also engaging these institutions or granting monies to ensure that criminal justice data are not used inappropriately in college admissions.
Niki Jagpal is research and policy director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Labels: Center for Community Alternatives, criminal justice system, education, High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy, offenders/ex-offenders, racial equity, social justice, targeted universalism
posted by Niki Jagpal at
1:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home