inequality

Court fines and fees  are hardly new, however, their use has increased in recent years. New research from Ilya Slavinski and Becky Pettit suggests that law enforcement agencies have resurrected these “legal financial obligations”  as an additional tool of punishment that targets and constrains the same groups of people that have been historically disadvantaged by incarceration. Court fines and fees target and constrain the same groups of people that have been historically disadvantaged by incarceration

Slavinski and Pettit analyzed data from 254 counties in Texas, a large, diverse state that collected over $1 billion in legal financial obligations in 2016. 

Slavinski and Pettit found that Texas jurisdictions with high Republican voter affiliation issued monetary sanctions at a much higher rate than less conservative regions. This finding parallels prior research that links party identification with incarceration rates. Similarly, they noticed that heavy use of fines and fees was not associated with higher crime rates. This is consistent with research showing that some  “tough on crime” policies are more closely tied to politics, race, and class than they are to crime control. 

The researchers also found that legal fines and fees were disproportionately  administered in predominantly Black and Latinx areas. This builds on previous research that has linked incarceration rates to perceptions of “racial threat.”  

Slavinski and Pettit suggest that legal financial obligations are often used in combination with jail and prison time, rather than serving as an alternative to incarceration. This means that after people leave incarceration, they continue to be watched by authorities to ensure that they pay their legal financial obligations. By coupling prison sentences and legal fees in this way, the state has used legal debt to extend the surveillance and control of historically marginalized populations. 

Transportation is essential for everyday responsibilities like grabbing groceries or getting to work on time. But securing transportation can be difficult, particularly for people who live below the poverty line. Sociological research typically considers how poverty interacts with factors such as health, housing, and neighborhood crime, but rarely mentions transportation necessities. 

In a new research study, Alexandra Murphy and colleagues introduce the term transportation insecurity to describe difficulty traveling between places in a safe or timely manner. Experiencing transportation insecurity can include having unreliable, unsafe, or untimely transportation, as well as the emotional strain that can come from transportation problems.

Transportation insecurity is even more prevalent for those living below the poverty line. 53% of impoverished Americans experienced this phenomenon. Impoverished Americans are also most likely to experience the most severe level of transportation insecurity which may entail a higher frequency of car troubles, longer commutes, or other unsafe and inconvenient transportation conditions.

Americans who do not own cars, live in cities, are younger in age, do not have a high school diploma, or are non-white, also experience transportation insecurity more frequently.

One in four people in the United States struggle to secure safe and timely transportation. Over half of poor Americans have unreliable, unsafe, or untimely transportation. Clearly, then, policy aimed at alleviating the challenges of living in poverty needs to address transportation insecurity. One in four people in the United States struggle to secure safe and timely transportation

Parents must decide how much “screen time” is okay for their kids and how they are going to control technology use for their families. In new research, Stefanie Mollborn and colleagues examined how higher socioeconomic status (SES) families control their children’s technology use. They were surprised to find that families with higher socioeconomic status don’t set hard limits on technology use. Instead, parents and youth collaborated on setting boundaries around technology. 

Millborn and her team conducted 77 interviews with higher SES families. One of their most basic findings is that parents believe there are good and bad ways of using technology. “Good” uses of technology included reading, information gathering, producing content, developing computer skills, and family time like watching tv or a movie together. “Bad” uses of technology included watching TV content individually and playing non-educational video games. parents believe there are good and bad ways of using technology

Although parents identified “good” and “bad” uses of technology, they didn’t want to set hard limits on technology. The reason? Because they felt this would not help their children learn how to communicate with adults, a skill that they thought would benefit their children when they speak with adults in power outside of the home. 

Instead of setting limits on “bad” technology use, these parents sought to work collaboratively with their children. For instance, when April saw her daughter texting while doing her homework, she didn’t tell her not to do but but instead said: “Use it [technology] when it’s helpful. Have fun with it … but don’t let it consume you.”She then asked her daughter,“How does it feel to be sitting there doing your homework and you ‘get the ding’? Is that distracting? Would you like me to help you with a boundary?”Instead of setting limits on “bad” technology use, parents sought to work collaboratively with their children

This study highlights that parents with high socioeconomic status want to communicate about technology with their children, rather than setting hard limits. While parents tried to work collaboratively to set media limits with their children it produced conflict when youth pushed for technology use. Many high-income parents talked about just having to give in to their children at times because of the emotional effort involved in saying “no” so many times.

Across the United States, campaigns have pushed for higher minimum wages. Many are motivated by the economic benefits of these changes. New research suggests that increasing the minimum wage can also have substantial effects on non-economic domains of life such as marriage rates, family formation, and relationships.

Benjamin Karney and colleagues examined recent data on marriage and divorce rates in cities that had a minimum wage increase of $1 an hour. Their research revealed that small increases in the minimum wage have a significant effect on relationship patterns. Karney and his coauthors uncovered surprising, and somewhat contradictory, patterns.

In cities that raised the minimum wage, for example, there was actually a 5% decrease in marriage rates for men and 4.5% for women. On the other hand, researchers found that divorce rates fell by 10% for men and 7% for women after a year in these same cities. In cities that raised the minimum wage there was a decrease in marriage rates…divorce rates fell…in these same cities

The authors suggest that these decreasing marriage rates may result from higher minimum wages. When young people are more financially independent they can prolong their search for a better partner. Since marrying later usually results in longer-lasting unions, this change may spell stability for future families. 

Conversely, the researchers speculated that lower divorce rates are also due to worker’s lessened financial stress. By relieving economic concerns, the chances of divorce for couples are lessened.

Increasing minimum wages have many economic benefits. This research show that they also have significant effects on non-economic concerns such as relationships and families. These impacts may differ from our long-held assumptions about relationships. These non-economic changes are important to consider as communities work to raise wages. 

Parents with high levels of education and income spend a lot of money raising their children. They shuttle their kids between violin lessons and soccer practice, fill playrooms with toys designed to aid kids’ development, and squeeze in weekend visits to museums and exhibits. Low-income parents’ money, in contrast, is more tightly stretched, and tends to go towards necessities like bills and food. Can anything be done about these differences and inequalities? New research from Margot Jackson and Daniel Schneider suggests a potential solution, one that involves increased public investment for all kids.

Jackson and Schneider created and analyzed a new data set that links state-level investments in children and families with information on household spending on children over a period of fifteen years. Examples of state-level spending include things like public education, welfare, and Medicaid. Household spending includes purchases of educational books or toys or recreational equipment. They find that when public investment increases, inequality in parental spending on children decreases.

There are two reasons for these promising results. One is that low-income families have more money to spend on their children when public support helps families meet their basic needs. In other words, when income and healthcare are supplemented, families have more money available to invest in their children’s education and development.when public support helps families meet their basic needs…[they] have more money available to invest in their children’s education and development

At the same time, when there is more universal public investment in resources like schools, high-income parents spend less on their children, more confident in the resources their children are already receiving. In short, increased public investments allow low-income parents to spend more, and high-income parents to spend less.

Those of us who care about inequalities in parental spending on children know that early inequalities set the stage for a lifetime of differences in the opportunities and experiences available to people in their formative years. It can be difficult to imagine how these gaps can be narrowed. This research shows that these inequalities are not fixed or inevitable, and that more public spending on children can help equalize the playing field.  

Over the past two years, hundreds of K-12 education hours were lost to COVID-19 and we are beginning to see the academic impact. But what about the emotional, social, and mental health impacts? In new research, Kate Watson and colleagues show some of the challenges students faced during the COVID-19 school closures by analyzing a nationwide survey of school social workers.

While teachers may concentrate on the academic achievement of students, school social workers focus on the emotional, social, and “other” sides of education. 

Above and beyond lost classroom and learning time, COVID-19 school closings meant that children were unable to spend time with friends, attend extracurricular activities, and participate in many traditional school activities for months — and school social workers noticed. 

In the survey, school social workers identified that 76% of students needed mental health services, 62% needed food, and 62% needed tutoring. Typically, these services would be coordinated and provided by the school social worker – such as placing daily food inside of backpacks of students in need of dinner after school.  However, forced to stay at arm’s length, school social workers were severely limited in aiding their students’ basic needs.forced to stay at arm’s length, school social workers were severely limited in aiding their students’ basic needs

School social workers also shared the levels of student participation and engagement through virtual education. Strikingly, more than 80% of participants reported extremely low levels of student participation.  In other words, students generally showed an extremely low level of engagement during “zooming”. Notably, students of color and students who live in poverty were even less likely to be engaged – widening inequities.

Schools have long been about more than just academic learning. Today, while COVID-19 appears to be on the retreat, society must take stock of the lessons learned and implement changes to better prepare schools and the holistic well being of children. The perspectives of school social workers, as advocates for children’s emotional, social, and holistic well being, can show us how much our society relies on schools – beyond just the academics.

Gender and work researchers have long encountered a puzzle: despite persistent gender discrimination, pay gaps, sexual harassment, and segregation within workplaces, women report approximately the same levels of job satisfaction as men. A new American Journal of Sociology article shows how “dignity” at work, measured in terms of respect and recognition, helps resolve this paradox. 

To consider whether work experiences of respect and recognition are gendered, Roscigno, Yavorsky, and Quadlin use nationally-representative survey data from 2002 to 2018. Specifically, the authors examined self-reported measures of job satisfaction, respect at work, fair pay, and fair promotional procedures. 

Although men and women in this time span report roughly equivalent job satisfaction, women are approximately 20% less likely to say that their pay is fair, and about 27% less likely to perceive fairness in promotion and experience respect at work. In addition, women who had experienced sexual harassment or gender discrimination at work were less likely to report feeling respected at work. 

Taken together, these findings indicate that women experience less dignity at work than men, despite reporting comparable levels of job satisfaction. Additionally, what the authors call power-laden, gendered interactions like sexual harassment play a strong part in undermining women’s sense of dignity and respect in the workplace.women experience less dignity at work than men, despite reporting comparable levels of job satisfaction

After the wave of Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, the idea of being actively anti-racist, as opposed to simply “not racist” or “color-blind,” has gained popular attention. But does the general public agree that there is a distinction between being “not racist” and being “anti-racist”? According to a new paper by three sociologists, Samuel Perry, Joshua Grubbs, and Kenneth Frantz, the answer is no.

Perry, Grubbs, and Frantz begin from the claim that the language of “anti-racism” has increased in prominence over the last decade. They point to the proliferation of educational curricula incorporating this language, as well as a number of best-selling books. Data from Google shows that the use of terms related to anti-racism in books has spiked since 2013. And Google searches for “antiracist” peaked in the summer of 2020. Against this backdrop, the sociologists use survey data to explore which groups of Americans are most likely to identify as “anti-racist.” 

Unsurprisingly, the research team found that among the people surveyed, the strongest correlation for identifying as “anti-racist” is holding progressive views on racial issues.

Other findings were more surprising. For example,  the second-strongest correlation among all survey respondents with identifying as “anti-racist” was identifying as “color-blind.” In other words, many Americans identify as both “anti-racist” and “color-blind.” This discovery is intriguing because in recent years sociologists have tended to emphasize the more conservative effects of colorblindness rather than its more liberal or change-oriented dimensions.many Americans identify as both “anti-racist” and “color-blind”

The authors suggest that this is because both the terms “anti-racist” and “color-blind” read to whites as being liberal views on race, but not radical. This is in contrast to the academic discourse (and even some popular books) about these terms.

In addition, researchers also found that Black and Hispanic people were significantly less likely than white people to identify as “anti-racist.”  One reason for this may be that books, curricula, and other campaigns advocating for “anti-racism” are often targeted at white audiences. It also does not necessarily mean that white people more often behave in an anti-racist manner. People in general are likely to identify as “anti-racist,” regardless of their views on race. This includes those who would, for example, not confront a friend who made a racist comment.

This research reminds us that people’s conceptions of race are complicated and ever-changing. The way scholars understand race does not always line up with the general public.

We usually think about gentrification as the replacement of poor, non-white residents with white and affluent newcomersin city neighborhoods. According to this narrative, property values rise alongside an influx in amenities catering to a wealthy, whiter community. But an immersive new study from Alfredo Huante complicates that by showing how a changing working-class, Latinx neighborhood in LA grapples with affluent Latinx arrivals.

Using the case study of Los Angeles’ Boyle Heights barrio, Huante examines a process he calls “gente-fication.” During “gente-fication” educated, higher-income, and lighter-skinned Latinx move to historically working-class barrios. Instead of a process of “gentrification” where the “gentry,” or the elite and noble classes move to a neighborhood, “gente” describes a distinct process in which new, wealthier arrivals share  existing residents’ racial or ethnic background. Huante’s research moves beyond the black-white conflict usually associated with gentrification to emphasize tensions within the same racial and ethnic group that are present in the processes of neighborhood change in Boyle Heights. Huante draws on in-depth interviews with long-term barrio residents, community activists, and real estate agents, in addition to data from social media and neighborhood meetings.During “gente-fication” educated, higher-income, and lighter-skinned Latinx move to historically working-class barrios

Despite the fact that the majority of Boyle Heights’ residents are Latinx and working class, barrio residents disagree about whether gente-fication is a threat to the neighborhood. Long-term White residents and Latinx media figures argue that new wealthy Latinx residents will stimulate economic growth and foster racial diversity. Because gente-fiers are Latinx, not white, they also feel like their arrival prevents the cultural erasure usually brought about by gentrification. On the other hand, local activists opposing gentrification claim the new class of Latinx newcomers are still displacing and replacing long-term working-class Latinx residents who are also darker-skinned.

While it seems like this process of gentefication preserves the racial and ethnic character of a neighborhood, Huante’s emphasis on class inequalities within racial and ethnic groups reminds us that the complexities of intra-ethnic dynamics on the ground have a much different story to tell.

Parenting is hard. Ensuring that their kids are healthy and successful, while maintaining their own well-being and other commitments, is a real challenge for many caregivers. Parenting classes, an intervention targeted towards low-income parents, can help. These classes can potentially offer parents support and help them build skills. 

However, new research from Maia Cuchiarra shows how parents and class instructors may have fundamentally different understandings of the purpose of parenting. In particular, parents and instructors may disagree about the appropriateness of physical discipline, particularly when parents are concerned about preparing their children to live in a hostile or threatening environment.parents and class instructors may have fundamentally different understandings of the purpose of parenting

Cucchiara attended weekly, community-based parenting courses taught by professionals living in the same predominantly Black and lower-income neighborhood.  Most of the class participants that Cuchiarra observed attended classes voluntarily or as a requirement of a housing program, not due to court-mandate. 

The Black mothers in the course understood parenting through a “protective frame.” They viewed their primary responsibility as ensuring the physical safety of their children in a world, and local community, that was unsafe and potentially violent. They had a nuanced view of physical discipline and drew clear distinctions between types of force that were or were not appropriate. These mothers felt that it was important for their children to respect them and understand how to use force to protect themselves if threatened.

In contrast, class instructors used a “therapeutic frame.” They viewed children as very vulnerable and in need of warm and gentle support. They did not think that physical discipline was ever appropriate and viewed the potential consequences of using physical discipline as serious for both the parent-child relationship and children’s self-esteem.

The mothers in the study used physical discipline because it helped them meet their high-stakes goal of keeping their children safe in a hostile world. Even though the parents and instructors in this study were members of the same community, this research shows how professional commitments to non-violence can clash with the parental responsibility of raising children in potentially violent environments. The mothers in the study used physical discipline because it helped them meet their high-stakes goal of keeping their children safe in a hostile world