SLIDE 1
Fathers and Fathering in the Era of Mass Incarceration Christopher - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Fathers and Fathering in the Era of Mass Incarceration Christopher - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Fathers and Fathering in the Era of Mass Incarceration Christopher Wildeman Yale University May 24, 2012 Goals for this talk Social patterning. Effects on families. Policy implications. Goals for this talk Social patterning.
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Goals for this talk
◮ Social patterning. ◮ Effects on families. ◮ Policy implications.
SLIDE 4
Goals for this talk
◮ Social patterning. ◮ Effects on families. ◮ Policy implications.
SLIDE 5
Goals for this talk
◮ Social patterning. ◮ Effects on families. ◮ Policy implications.
SLIDE 6
Social patterning
◮ Historically novel. ◮ Comparatively extreme. ◮ Highly concentrated. ◮ Accumulates.
SLIDE 7
Social patterning
◮ Historically novel. ◮ Comparatively extreme. ◮ Highly concentrated. ◮ Accumulates.
SLIDE 8
Social patterning
◮ Historically novel. ◮ Comparatively extreme. ◮ Highly concentrated. ◮ Accumulates.
SLIDE 9
Social patterning
◮ Historically novel. ◮ Comparatively extreme. ◮ Highly concentrated. ◮ Accumulates.
SLIDE 10
Social patterning
◮ Historically novel. ◮ Comparatively extreme. ◮ Highly concentrated. ◮ Accumulates.
SLIDE 11
1940 1960 1980 2000 100 200 300 400 500 Year Imprisonment Rate (Per 100,000 Population)
U.S. Imprisonment Rates, 1925−1973
SLIDE 12
1940 1960 1980 2000 100 200 300 400 500 Year Imprisonment Rate (Per 100,000 Population)
U.S. Imprisonment Rates, 1925−2006
SLIDE 13
- 1985
1995 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United States
SLIDE 14
- 1985
1995 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United States
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United Kingdom
SLIDE 15
- 1985
1995 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United States
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United Kingdom
- ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Spain
SLIDE 16
- 1985
1995 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United States
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United Kingdom
- ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Spain
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1985 1990 1995 2000 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Netherlands
SLIDE 17
- 1985
1995 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United States
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United Kingdom
- ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Spain
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1985 1990 1995 2000 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Netherlands
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Denmark
SLIDE 18
- 1985
1995 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United States
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
United Kingdom
- ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Spain
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1985 1990 1995 2000 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Netherlands
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Denmark
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1990 1995 2000 2005 200 400 600 800 Year Incarceration Rate
Austria
SLIDE 19
- 1940
1960 1980 2000 200 400 600 800 1000 Year Imprisonment Rate (Per 100,000 Population)
- Total
U.S. Imprisonment Rates by Gender, 1925−2003
SLIDE 20
- 1940
1960 1980 2000 200 400 600 800 1000 Year Imprisonment Rate (Per 100,000 Population)
- Total
Male
U.S. Imprisonment Rates by Gender, 1925−2003
SLIDE 21
- 1940
1960 1980 2000 200 400 600 800 1000 Year Imprisonment Rate (Per 100,000 Population)
- Total
Male Female
U.S. Imprisonment Rates by Gender, 1925−2003
SLIDE 22
Percent of men incarcerated on any day by race and age, 2006 White Black Latino 18-19 0.9 5.4 2.1 20-24 1.7 10.7 4.2 25-29 1.7 11.7 3.9 30-34 1.9 11.2 3.7 35-39 1.6 9.8 3.1 40-44 1.4 8.0 2.6 45-54 0.7 4.4 1.8 55+ 0.2 0.8 0.5
SLIDE 23
Percent of men incarcerated on any day by race and age, 2006 White Black Latino 18-19 0.9 5.4 2.1 20-24 1.7 10.7 4.2 25-29 1.7 11.7 3.9 30-34 1.9 11.2 3.7 35-39 1.6 9.8 3.1 40-44 1.4 8.0 2.6 45-54 0.7 4.4 1.8 55+ 0.2 0.8 0.5
SLIDE 24
Percent of men incarcerated on any day by race and age, 2006 White Black Latino 18-19 0.9 5.4 2.1 20-24 1.7 10.7 4.2 25-29 1.7 11.7 3.9 30-34 1.9 11.2 3.7 35-39 1.6 9.8 3.1 40-44 1.4 8.0 2.6 45-54 0.7 4.4 1.8 55+ 0.2 0.8 0.5
SLIDE 25
Percent of men incarcerated on any day by race and age, 2006 White Black Latino 18-19 0.9 5.4 2.1 20-24 1.7 10.7 4.2 25-29 1.7 11.7 3.9 30-34 1.9 11.2 3.7 35-39 1.6 9.8 3.1 40-44 1.4 8.0 2.6 45-54 0.7 4.4 1.8 55+ 0.2 0.8 0.5
SLIDE 26
Percent of men incarcerated on any day by race and age, 2006 White Black Latino 18-19 0.9 5.4 2.1 20-24 1.7 10.7 4.2 25-29 1.7 11.7 3.9 30-34 1.9 11.2 3.7 35-39 1.6 9.8 3.1 40-44 1.4 8.0 2.6 45-54 0.7 4.4 1.8 55+ 0.2 0.8 0.5
SLIDE 27
Risk of imprisonment by age 30-34: Men born 1945-49, 1970-74 Born 1945-49 Born 1970-74 All White Men 1.2 2.8 All Non-College 1.8 5.1 HS Dropout 4.2 14.8 HS Only 0.7 4.0 Some College 0.7 0.9 All Black Men 9.0 22.8 All Non-College 12.1 30.9 HS Dropout 14.7 62.5 HS Only 10.2 20.3 Some College 4.9 8.5
SLIDE 28
Risk of imprisonment by age 30-34: Men born 1945-49, 1970-74 Born 1945-49 Born 1970-74 All White Men 1.2 2.8 All Non-College 1.8 5.1 HS Dropout 4.2 14.8 HS Only 0.7 4.0 Some College 0.7 0.9 All Black Men 9.0 22.8 All Non-College 12.1 30.9 HS Dropout 14.7 62.5 HS Only 10.2 20.3 Some College 4.9 8.5
SLIDE 29
Risk of imprisonment by age 30-34: Men born 1945-49, 1970-74 Born 1945-49 Born 1970-74 All White Men 1.2 2.8 All Non-College 1.8 5.1 HS Dropout 4.2 14.8 HS Only 0.7 4.0 Some College 0.7 0.9 All Black Men 9.0 22.8 All Non-College 12.1 30.9 HS Dropout 14.7 62.5 HS Only 10.2 20.3 Some College 4.9 8.5
SLIDE 30
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
White Children
- 1978
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
Black Children
- 1978
SLIDE 31
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
White Children
- 1978
1990
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- Black Children
- 1978
1990
SLIDE 32
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
White Children
- College: 1978
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
Black Children
- College: 1978
SLIDE 33
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978
SLIDE 34
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978
SLIDE 35
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ●
Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990
SLIDE 36
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990 HS: 1990
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ●
- Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990 HS: 1990
SLIDE 37
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990 HS: 1990 Drop: 1990
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Paternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ●
- Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990 HS: 1990 Drop: 1990
SLIDE 38
- ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
White Children
- 1978
- ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
Black Children
- 1978
SLIDE 39
- ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ●
- ●
- ●
- ●
- ● ●
- White Children
- 1978
1990
- ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- Black Children
- 1978
1990
SLIDE 40
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
White Children
- College: 1978
- ●
- ●
- ● ●
- ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
Black Children
- College: 1978
SLIDE 41
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978
- ●
- ●
- ● ●
- ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ●
- ●
- ●
- ●
Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978
SLIDE 42
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978
- ●
- ●
- ● ●
- ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ●
- ●
- ●
- ●
- Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978
SLIDE 43
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ●
White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990
- ●
- ●
- ● ●
- ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ●
- ●
- ●
- ●
- Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990
SLIDE 44
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ●
- ●
- ● ●
- White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990 HS: 1990
- ●
- ●
- ● ●
- ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ●
- ●
- ●
- ●
- Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990 HS: 1990
SLIDE 45
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
- ●
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ● ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ●
- ● ●
- ●
- ● ●
- ●
- ●
- ●
- White Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990 HS: 1990 Drop: 1990
- ●
- ●
- ● ●
- ●
- 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Child's Age Proportion Having Experienced Maternal Imprisonment
- ● ●
- ●
- ●
- ●
- Black Children
- College: 1978
HS: 1978 Drop: 1978 College: 1990 HS: 1990 Drop: 1990
SLIDE 46
Effects on families
◮ Paternal wellbeing. ◮ Family functioning. ◮ Maternal wellbeing. ◮ Child wellbeing.
SLIDE 47
Effects on families
◮ Paternal wellbeing. ◮ Family functioning. ◮ Maternal wellbeing. ◮ Child wellbeing.
SLIDE 48
Effects on families
◮ Paternal wellbeing. ◮ Family functioning. ◮ Maternal wellbeing. ◮ Child wellbeing.
SLIDE 49
Effects on families
◮ Paternal wellbeing. ◮ Family functioning. ◮ Maternal wellbeing. ◮ Child wellbeing.
SLIDE 50
Effects on families
◮ Paternal wellbeing. ◮ Family functioning. ◮ Maternal wellbeing. ◮ Child wellbeing.
SLIDE 51
Paternal wellbeing
◮ A small mountain of research here. ◮ Quantitative work suggests mostly harm – labor market,
family structure, civic engagement, and a host of others.
◮ Qualitative work quite similar – though maybe turning point.
SLIDE 52
Paternal wellbeing
◮ A small mountain of research here. ◮ Quantitative work suggests mostly harm – labor market,
family structure, civic engagement, and a host of others.
◮ Qualitative work quite similar – though maybe turning point.
SLIDE 53
Paternal wellbeing
◮ A small mountain of research here. ◮ Quantitative work suggests mostly harm – labor market,
family structure, civic engagement, and a host of others.
◮ Qualitative work quite similar – though maybe turning point.
SLIDE 54
Paternal wellbeing
◮ A small mountain of research here. ◮ Quantitative work suggests mostly harm – labor market,
family structure, civic engagement, and a host of others.
◮ Qualitative work quite similar – though maybe turning point.
SLIDE 55
Family functioning
◮ Not much. ◮ A couple good, fairly recent qualitative studies. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Very little quantitative – financial contributions, maternal
support and hardships, and amount of paternal involvement.
◮ Again, point toward harm.
SLIDE 56
Family functioning
◮ Not much. ◮ A couple good, fairly recent qualitative studies. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Very little quantitative – financial contributions, maternal
support and hardships, and amount of paternal involvement.
◮ Again, point toward harm.
SLIDE 57
Family functioning
◮ Not much. ◮ A couple good, fairly recent qualitative studies. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Very little quantitative – financial contributions, maternal
support and hardships, and amount of paternal involvement.
◮ Again, point toward harm.
SLIDE 58
Family functioning
◮ Not much. ◮ A couple good, fairly recent qualitative studies. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Very little quantitative – financial contributions, maternal
support and hardships, and amount of paternal involvement.
◮ Again, point toward harm.
SLIDE 59
Family functioning
◮ Not much. ◮ A couple good, fairly recent qualitative studies. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Very little quantitative – financial contributions, maternal
support and hardships, and amount of paternal involvement.
◮ Again, point toward harm.
SLIDE 60
Family functioning
◮ Not much. ◮ A couple good, fairly recent qualitative studies. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Very little quantitative – financial contributions, maternal
support and hardships, and amount of paternal involvement.
◮ Again, point toward harm.
SLIDE 61
Maternal wellbeing
◮ Again, very little. ◮ The same qualitative studies again yield insight. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Even less quantitative – maternal depression and unhappiness. ◮ Again, points toward harm.
SLIDE 62
Maternal wellbeing
◮ Again, very little. ◮ The same qualitative studies again yield insight. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Even less quantitative – maternal depression and unhappiness. ◮ Again, points toward harm.
SLIDE 63
Maternal wellbeing
◮ Again, very little. ◮ The same qualitative studies again yield insight. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Even less quantitative – maternal depression and unhappiness. ◮ Again, points toward harm.
SLIDE 64
Maternal wellbeing
◮ Again, very little. ◮ The same qualitative studies again yield insight. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Even less quantitative – maternal depression and unhappiness. ◮ Again, points toward harm.
SLIDE 65
Maternal wellbeing
◮ Again, very little. ◮ The same qualitative studies again yield insight. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Even less quantitative – maternal depression and unhappiness. ◮ Again, points toward harm.
SLIDE 66
Maternal wellbeing
◮ Again, very little. ◮ The same qualitative studies again yield insight. ◮ Tend to suggest harm – at least in the long-term. ◮ Even less quantitative – maternal depression and unhappiness. ◮ Again, points toward harm.
SLIDE 67
Child wellbeing
◮ A slightly smaller mountain than for adult men. ◮ Much more quantitative (which makes sense given IRB). ◮ I stress studies of young kids – easier for causal. ◮ Robust association with acting out – both as physical
aggression and externalizing – but less so for internalizing.
◮ Also pushes kids further to the margins – increases their risks
- f homelessness and infant mortality, to name just a few.
SLIDE 68
Child wellbeing
◮ A slightly smaller mountain than for adult men. ◮ Much more quantitative (which makes sense given IRB). ◮ I stress studies of young kids – easier for causal. ◮ Robust association with acting out – both as physical
aggression and externalizing – but less so for internalizing.
◮ Also pushes kids further to the margins – increases their risks
- f homelessness and infant mortality, to name just a few.
SLIDE 69
Child wellbeing
◮ A slightly smaller mountain than for adult men. ◮ Much more quantitative (which makes sense given IRB). ◮ I stress studies of young kids – easier for causal. ◮ Robust association with acting out – both as physical
aggression and externalizing – but less so for internalizing.
◮ Also pushes kids further to the margins – increases their risks
- f homelessness and infant mortality, to name just a few.
SLIDE 70
Child wellbeing
◮ A slightly smaller mountain than for adult men. ◮ Much more quantitative (which makes sense given IRB). ◮ I stress studies of young kids – easier for causal. ◮ Robust association with acting out – both as physical
aggression and externalizing – but less so for internalizing.
◮ Also pushes kids further to the margins – increases their risks
- f homelessness and infant mortality, to name just a few.
SLIDE 71
Child wellbeing
◮ A slightly smaller mountain than for adult men. ◮ Much more quantitative (which makes sense given IRB). ◮ I stress studies of young kids – easier for causal. ◮ Robust association with acting out – both as physical
aggression and externalizing – but less so for internalizing.
◮ Also pushes kids further to the margins – increases their risks
- f homelessness and infant mortality, to name just a few.
SLIDE 72
Child wellbeing
◮ A slightly smaller mountain than for adult men. ◮ Much more quantitative (which makes sense given IRB). ◮ I stress studies of young kids – easier for causal. ◮ Robust association with acting out – both as physical
aggression and externalizing – but less so for internalizing.
◮ Also pushes kids further to the margins – increases their risks
- f homelessness and infant mortality, to name just a few.
SLIDE 73
The state of research on effects
◮ Used a host of strategies – covariate adjustment, propensity
scores, sample restrictions, fixed effects, and placebos.
◮ Still hard to be certain the effects are causal. ◮ In my opinion, this is just how social science is, but it
complicates suggestions in terms of what we should be doing.
SLIDE 74
The state of research on effects
◮ Used a host of strategies – covariate adjustment, propensity
scores, sample restrictions, fixed effects, and placebos.
◮ Still hard to be certain the effects are causal. ◮ In my opinion, this is just how social science is, but it
complicates suggestions in terms of what we should be doing.
SLIDE 75
The state of research on effects
◮ Used a host of strategies – covariate adjustment, propensity
scores, sample restrictions, fixed effects, and placebos.
◮ Still hard to be certain the effects are causal. ◮ In my opinion, this is just how social science is, but it
complicates suggestions in terms of what we should be doing.
SLIDE 76
The state of research on effects
◮ Used a host of strategies – covariate adjustment, propensity
scores, sample restrictions, fixed effects, and placebos.
◮ Still hard to be certain the effects are causal. ◮ In my opinion, this is just how social science is, but it
complicates suggestions in terms of what we should be doing.
SLIDE 77
Nonetheless, two suggestions (1)
◮ (1) Attend to social problems with policies that invest in the
poorest communities rather than with criminal justice policies.
◮ Cutting the imprisonment rate by 25 percent would lead to
400,000 less prisoners. At a rate of $24,000 per prisoners per year, that’s a savings of $9.6 billion. (Simplistic, I know.)
SLIDE 78
Nonetheless, two suggestions (1)
◮ (1) Attend to social problems with policies that invest in the
poorest communities rather than with criminal justice policies.
◮ Cutting the imprisonment rate by 25 percent would lead to
400,000 less prisoners. At a rate of $24,000 per prisoners per year, that’s a savings of $9.6 billion. (Simplistic, I know.)
SLIDE 79
Nonetheless, two suggestions (1)
◮ (1) Attend to social problems with policies that invest in the
poorest communities rather than with criminal justice policies.
◮ Cutting the imprisonment rate by 25 percent would lead to
400,000 less prisoners. At a rate of $24,000 per prisoners per year, that’s a savings of $9.6 billion. (Simplistic, I know.)
SLIDE 80
Nonetheless, two suggestions (2)
◮ (2) Enhance services to families experiencing incarceration. ◮ Even if incarceration doesn’t cause harm, many of these
families are in dire straits and could use additional services.
◮ So one broad policy (that helps all in poor communities) and
- ne targeted one (that helps the most marginalized families).
SLIDE 81
Nonetheless, two suggestions (2)
◮ (2) Enhance services to families experiencing incarceration. ◮ Even if incarceration doesn’t cause harm, many of these
families are in dire straits and could use additional services.
◮ So one broad policy (that helps all in poor communities) and
- ne targeted one (that helps the most marginalized families).
SLIDE 82
Nonetheless, two suggestions (2)
◮ (2) Enhance services to families experiencing incarceration. ◮ Even if incarceration doesn’t cause harm, many of these
families are in dire straits and could use additional services.
◮ So one broad policy (that helps all in poor communities) and
- ne targeted one (that helps the most marginalized families).
SLIDE 83
Nonetheless, two suggestions (2)
◮ (2) Enhance services to families experiencing incarceration. ◮ Even if incarceration doesn’t cause harm, many of these
families are in dire straits and could use additional services.
◮ So one broad policy (that helps all in poor communities) and
- ne targeted one (that helps the most marginalized families).