Race, Lived Experience, Representation, and Discrimination: Analyzing the Representative Capacities of the Racial Majority

• Published date: 01 January 2025
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740241275715
• Author: Ryan J. Lofaro,Alka Sapat
• Date: 01 January 2025

Race, Lived Experience, Representation,

and Discrimination: Analyzing the

Representative Capacities of the Racial

Majority

Ryan J. Lofaro

1

and Alka Sapat

2

Abstract

The representative bureaucracy theory literature has often focused on the viewpoints, attitudes, and actions of minoritized

groups rather than the racial majority, with studies predominately analyzing representative capacities tied to race, ethnicity,

and gender. The current research employs both racial and lived experience representation lenses to analyze the viewpoints of

non-Hispanic white public servants regarding the deservingness of white, Black, and unidentif‌ied clients. Using the opioid crisis

as the context, results from an exploratory analysis of a nationwide survey experiment of f‌irst responders show that white law

enforcement workers view white clients with opioid use disorder as more deserving than Black and unidentif‌ied clients. Both

indirect and direct lived experiences with substance use disorder predict positive attitudes toward clients. Direct lived expe-

rience nullif‌ies the negative beliefs white law enforcement workers express about Black clients, highlighting the signif‌icance of

the intersection of racial and lived experience representation. Practical implications include promoting organizational practices

that leverage the strength of shared lived experience to mitigate racial biases and encourage compassion for clients.

Keywords

representative bureaucracy theory, representation through lived experience, deservingness, f‌irst responders

The representative bureaucracy theory literature posits that

bureaucrats who share social origins with the public they

serve can better advocate for their clients as a result of

shared values and experiences (Meier, 1993; Mosher, 1968).

Though great strides have been made in f‌inding that race

and ethnicity make a difference in public service (Bradbury

& Kellough, 2008; Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2016; Riccucci

& Meyers, 2004; Selden, 1997), representation-centered

studies have mostly focused on bureaucrats of color rather

than analyzing the established majority, thus tacitly placing

the onus on these bureaucrats to protect clients sharing their

demographic characteristics (Portillo et al., 2022). Such

research has aimed attention at the shared lived experiences

between minoritized bureaucrats and minoritized clients that

lead to positive outcomes for the latter, without also seeking

to understand how white public servants contribute to inequi-

ties (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020). Thus, the literature has largely

overlooked whether white bureaucrats represent Black clients

(Blume, 2023). The result is an incomplete understanding of

how the racial and ethnic majority may contribute to the per-

petuation of discrimination.

Further, studies on representation have often aimed atten-

tion at identities tied to gender, race, and ethnicity (Bishu &

Kennedy, 2020; Kennedy, 2014). Representation through

lived experience has recently expanded the scope of the

theory to f‌ind that managers at substance use treatment pro-

grams are more likely to hire staff who have had experiences

with substance use disorder (i.e., addiction) when they recog-

nize their unique representative capacities that can lead to

increased trust and a client-centered perspective (Merritt

et al., 2020; Park, 2020). Zamboni (2020) qualitatively ana-

lyzed the effect of the lived experiences of f‌irst responders

to f‌ind that their attitudes related to client deservingness are

inf‌luenced by their lived experiences, in addition to the

actions and behaviors of clients. However, this thread in

the representative bureaucracy literature has also lacked suf-

f‌icient attention.

Substance use disorder (SUD) represents a lived experi-

ence which has experienced stigmatization and at times

demonization (Reinarman, 1994). Individuals who use

1

Department of Public and Nonprof‌it Studies, Georgia Southern University,

Statesboro, USA

2

School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,

USA

Corresponding Author:

Ryan J. Lofaro, Department of Public and Nonprof‌it Studies, Georgia

Southern University, 1332 Southern Drive, Statesboro, GA 30458.

Email: rlofaro@georgiasouthern.edu

Article

The American Review of Public Administration

2025, Vol. 55(1) 41–64

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/02750740241275715

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

illicit drugs and those in the criminal justice system are often

labeled as ‘deviants’and subsequently perceived as unde-

serving of policy benef‌its (Ingram et al., 2007; Schneider &

Ingram, 1997). Such a label has a substantial effect at imple-

mentation, during which street-level bureaucrats and their

supervisors interact with and make decisions about clients

based on client characteristics and the social origins, values,

and lived experiences of the bureaucrat (Maynard-Moody

et al., 2003; Tummers et al., 2015; Zamboni, 2020). Street-

level bureaucrats represent the public servants implementing

public policies who act as liaisons between clients and

the state, often exercising discretionary biases that shape

public policy (Jilke & Tummers, 2018; Lipsky, 2010;

Maynard-Moody et al., 2003; Zamboni, 2020). Although

race’s intersection with the label of the ‘drug addict’has

coincided with discriminatory actions and beliefs in the

United States (Alexander, 2010; Reinarman, 1994), the

public administration literature has yet to explore said

intersection. Insight into how bureaucratic representation

inf‌luences perceptions regarding the deservingness of

minoritized clients can help to understand variations in view-

points on client ‘deviancy’when client race is involved.

The opioid crisis serves as the context for the current

study. Driven by a rise in opioid overdose deaths beginning

in the early 2000s, the crisis represents an area where race-

and addiction-related identities have intersected to inf‌luence

public services, as the increase in white substance use repre-

sents part of the reason for recent compassionate policies

(Metcalf et al., 2022; Om, 2018; Shachar et al., 2020).

Police personnel and emergency medical services

(EMS)-providers play a crucial role during the opioid

crisis, acting as the street-level bureaucrats who respond to

overdose calls and sometimes administer naloxone to

reverse the effects of an overdose (Baumgart-McFarland

et al., 2022; Metcalf et al., 2022). Though police and EMS

differ in their tasks, viewpoints, and actions, both f‌irst

responder types have the power to signif‌icantly affect client

well-being by better understanding medical needs, providing

medical care rather than punishment, and administering nal-

oxone effectively to save a life (Banta-Green et al., 2013;

Baumgart-McFarland et al., 2022). Hence, their perceptions

of clients are important to discern, especially clients of

color who are more likely to be labeled as ‘deviants.’

The study analyzes a nationwide survey experiment of

f‌irst responders in an exploratory fashion to understand

their viewpoints regarding the deservingness of clients with

opioid use disorder (OUD). Its aim is to answer the following

research questions: Do white f‌irst responders exhibit any

racial bias when judging the deservingness of clients? Does

lived experience representation affect this potential racial

bias? How do results vary between law enforcement

workers and EMS-providers? The f‌indings address gaps in

the representative bureaucracy literature involving the need

to analyze the beliefs of the racial majority, to explore the

intersection of racial and lived experience representation,

and to understand the effects of the intersection of client

race and so-called ‘deviancy.’

The article proceeds by surveying the literature on repre-

sentative bureaucracy, differences between types of f‌irst

responders, and representation through lived experience, fol-

lowed by a description of the survey experiment employed

and methods used. Then, results are analyzed and discussed

in the context of extant literature. The article ends with a dis-

cussion of study limitations and policy implications.

Theory and Hypotheses

Representative Bureaucracy Theory

Representative bureaucracy theory rests on the assumption

that ‘shared experiences or values, which may not be

shared across gender or race divisions, fundamentally affect

the decisions made by and the actions taken by the bureau-

crat’(Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006, p. 850). Mosher

(1968) def‌ined the theory’s conceptual boundaries with his

distinction between active and passive representation—the

former referring to whether the bureaucracy mirrors

the public’s demographic characteristics and the latter to

the actions and behaviors of bureaucrats resulting from a

shared identity. Scholars since have explored the

passive-active link. Several studies have demonstrated that

racial and ethnic similarities between bureaucrats and

clients result in changes to public servants’attitudes,

actions, and behaviors, which benef‌it minoritized groups

(see, e.g., Bradbury & Kellough, 2008; Nicholson-Crotty

et al., 2016; Riccucci & Meyers, 2004; Selden, 1997).

Integral to the aim of the current article, efforts have been

made to understand the redistributive properties of a repre-

sentative public service. Lim (2006) contends that the goals

of representative bureaucracy have the potential to run

counter to the principle of bureaucratic neutrality, given

that the favoritism displayed by racial and ethnic minorities

can happen at the expense of other demographic groups.

Other studies have shown that the benef‌its of increased diver-

sity extend to all citizens rather than only minoritized groups.

Representation can improve performance and correct inequi-

ties by ensuring underrepresented groups are less likely to

receive negative outcomes (Andrews et al., 2014; Hong,

2017; Meier, 2023; Meier et al., 1999). In a study of law

enforcement, Gilad and Dahan (2021) observed that Black

police off‌icers do not demonstrate preferential treatment for

Black clients during traff‌ic stops but instead correct inequities

by exhibiting impartiality as a form of representation. A lack

of inequity or bias constitutes a form of representation in that

the biases normally expected do not occur, thus making

clients of color better off without worsening conditions for

others. In other words, ‘moving toward a more representative

bureaucracy will not have outcomes detrimental to the estab-

lished majority…There appear to be no redistributional conse-

quences’(Meier et al., 1999, p. 1036). Nonetheless, questions

42 The American Review of Public Administration 55(1)