A couple of abstracts in the most recent American Journal of Political Science caught my eye. I'll quote the abstracts, then give a "common sense" translation.
Race, Bureaucratic Discretion, and the Implementation of Welfare Reform
This article explores the impact of the race of individual clients and of the local racial context on the implementation of sanctions for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in a Midwestern state. We find that although nonwhites are sanctioned at lower rates than whites overall, nonwhites are sanctioned more compared to whites in each local area. This paradox occurs because nonwhites tend to live in areas with lower sanction rates. Consistent with the literature on race and policy, we find that sanction rates increase as the nonwhite population increases until a threshold is reached where nonwhites gain political power.
TANF is best loosely thought of as the thing that replaced AFDC. Strict time limits, and largely state-based (with some federal assistance). If you don't follow the rules you get sliced and diced. What these researchers are looking at is "slice and dice rates." Do non-whites get jacked more than whites? Looking at the entire state and averaging, the answer is no. But looking within each county, the answer is yes. And this rate increases until nonwhites attain political power.