inequality

First-generation college students, or students whose parents did not receive a bachelor’s degree, make up a large portion of the student population. About a third of all undergraduate students are first-generation. Here at the University of Minnesota, first-gen students make up a quarter of our undergrad student body. First-gen students face a unique set of challenges as they enter college, including more academic and financial challenges than their peers. Surprisingly, despite their exposure to more stressors, new evidence shows that they do not experience more depressive symptoms. 

Tabitha Wilbur used data from the The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) to examine differences between first-generation and continuing-generation students’ exposure to stressors and depressive symptoms. Wilbur looks at the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms both before and after students enter college. 

Before college, first-generation students are more likely to be exposed to stressors like financial strain, unmet needs, or unsafe neighborhoods. They are also more likely to exhibit depressive symptoms. During college, first-generation students are also more likely to experience stressors such as student loan debt or housing insecurity. Despite this increased stress, however, during college first-generation students do not exhibit more depressive symptoms than their peers.Despite increased stress during college first-generation students do not exhibit more depressive symptoms than their peers.

Wilbur suggests that first-generation students’ relatively low depressive symptoms, compared to their stress exposure, may result from the assets they bring to college. As a result of earlier stress exposure, these students may have developed resilience that prepares them to handle college stressors. They also might feel more hopeful or grateful about the opportunities that college provides, compared to peers whose parents have a bachelor’s degree.

First-generation students are an important part of the student body at colleges and universities across the country. As faculty, administrators, and peers seek to better support first-generation students, Wilbur’s research is an important reminder to attend to their strengths and the positive contributions  that first-generation students are making to college communities.

Discussions of cities and food availability have long centered on the idea  that poor residents are likely to live in “food deserts,” areas of concentrated poverty with few food outlets. A new study of grocery stores in Metro Atlanta examines this idea, showing how spatial location and neighborhood characteristics shape access to grocery stores in surprising ways. Using quantitative data that tracks regional migration patterns 2003-2015, sociologists Joowon Jeong and Cathy Yang Liu find little evidence that low-income residents – predominantly residents of color – have less overall  access to food stores across geographic locations. 

Challenging the notion that poorer residents tend to live in food deserts, they instead find that urban residents living in high poverty rate areas have, on average, 1.73 more markets than others. One crucial caveat: in addition to neighborhood characteristics, disparities in food access vary across locations including central city, inner-ring suburbs, and outer ring suburbs. For example, residents living in Latinx-dominated central city neighborhoods and inner-ring suburban African Americans face markedly lower access to food outlets.Challenging the notion that poorer residents tend to live in food deserts, they instead find that urban residents living in high poverty rate areas have, on average, access to 1.73 more markets than others.

These surprising findings reflect some broader recent changes in “who lives where” in U.S. cities. The return of a younger, highly-educated middle class to city centers has pushed many working-class residents to more affordable suburbs. Although suburbs have historically enjoyed ample food options, this may no longer be the case. In the last decade, in particular, Jeong and Yang Liu find that grocery store options for inner-ring urbanites have increased while central city and outer-ring suburbs experienced little change. 

In revitalizing neighborhoods, the influx in food options alone won’t end the food scarcity residents face, with many new amenities like grocery stores and restaurants being costly and out of reach. Instead of offering all poor and working-class residents new affordable options for consumption, these stores disproportionately cater to whiter, affluent residents, meaning quality food remains out of reach for many residents. The food desert myth may be on ice, but food precarity endures.

The world changed.” That quotation sums up the experiences of participants in a new study by researchers Corey Moss-Pech, Steven H. Lopez, and Laurie Michaels. The researchers developed the term educational downgrading to describe how some workers are pursuing different types of education in the years since the Great Recession of 2008. 

Educational downgrading refers to workers returning to school to obtain a degree or credential at a lower level than educational credentials that they already have. While some individuals return to school for reasons of personal fulfillment or occupational upgrading, this term specifically refers to individuals responding to structural changes in the labor market. Facing a changed world, where professions increasingly require specialized credentials, the risk and expense of training is increasingly put on employees rather than employers, and some career paths simply no longer exist, these participants are pursuing new educational forms in an effort to manage or stop downward class mobility. these participants are pursuing new educational forms in an effort to manage or stop downward class mobility.

Researchers identified three circumstances that can lead to educational downgrading: occupational dead ends, career reversals, and educational inflation. These categories included participants across a range of ages and previous qualifications. 

Participants facing occupational dead ends felt that they had advanced as far as they could in their chosen field. They decided that they needed a new certificate to move into related work, even though the certificate was at a lower level of education than they previously achieved. Examples of participants in this category included a researcher who got a teaching license, a fine arts major who got an associates in communications for graphic design work, and an electrical engineer who got a certificate in IT.  

Participants facing career reversals found that their previously established careers were no longer available. For instance, participants with established careers in banking, law, public health, and digital media had faced significant periods of unemployment and were looking for an entirely new career path. 

Finally, some participants were looking to obtain credentials in the face of educational inflation. Credential inflation, or jobs requiring additional, more specialized, or higher credentials than previously, affected all participants in this study in some way. But educational inflation especially hit older adults who had been able to start a middle-class career without a bachelor’s degree prior to 2000. After losing their job in the 2008 recession, these workers found it impossible to apply for jobs that would maintain their status without a bachelor’s. Many of these participants settled for pursuing an alternative certification when they were unable to afford a four-year school. 

This study is an important contribution to research mapping how economic conditions after the Great Recession continue to shape school and work trajectories today. Job seekers are negotiating an altered landscape, one with new credential requirements, increasing inequality between types of jobs, and risk increasingly shifted onto individuals. For many of the participants in the study, a new certificate was necessary but not sufficient. These participants scraped together money for a new certificate but were still unable to secure work that would improve their financial situation.Job seekers are negotiating an altered landscape, one with new credential requirements, increasing inequality… and risk increasingly shifted onto individuals.

Educational downgrading highlights how adult education today isn’t just about self-fulfillment, educational upgrading, or occupational sidestepping. Instead, many adult learners are simply trying to maintain their occupational status or stop a downward slide. 

One in three American families could not afford diapers for their kids before the pandemic. Now, demand for diapers has grown by almost 400% due to COVID-related financial hardship, and this shortage has disproportionately affected women and low-wage workers, parents who previously relied on employers, childcare centers, or diaper banks. “Diaper need” is causing health problems, racialized stigma, and financial burden as parents must choose between providing diapers and other necessities like food or electricity. New research by sociologist Jennifer Randles examines the overlooked issue of diaper need and the innovative, labor-intensive strategies families are employing to meet it.

Randles conducted in-depth interviews with 70 mothers of young children. Over half of them named diapers as their most anxiety-inducing household expense, more than food, housing, or electricity.  Over half of [the mothers in the study] named diapers as their most anxiety-inducing household expense.

Respondents raised the health implications of diaper need for both children and parents. Keeping a baby in a used diaper for too long can result in painful rashes, urinary tract infections, and emergency room trips for the child. Mothers in Randles’ study went without medical care, internet access, toilet paper, tampons, food, and other necessities to save diaper money. Going hungry was particularly problematic for moms who were still breastfeeding.

Because diapers are considered fundamental to being a ‘good’ parent, diaper need also caused anxiety, loss of dignity, and stigma for mothers. As one respondent said, “it’s really scary for a mom not to have diapers, not to be able to provide this basic thing for your child.” The psychological consequences were intensified for mothers of color and poor mothers who faced contempt from welfare agents when trying to access diapers for their children due to racialized stereotypes of lazy and irresponsible “welfare queens.” 

Diaper need is a public health problem without a public policy solution. Although diapers are a basic hygiene need of early childhood, they are categorized as “unallowable expenses” by aid programs like SNAP and WIC. Most states tax diapers as “discretionary” expenses. As one mother said, “babies need diapers as people. They are not a luxury. They are about being human.” If they were covered under existing welfare programs, parents would not need to face these difficult choices. Diaper need is a public health problem without a public policy solution.

The 2020 murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police reinvigorated a national debate on racism in law enforcement. Despite calls to eliminate aggressive engagement practices – such as the chokehold – larger debates on racist biases in law enforcement remain fraught and contested. In a recent article, sociologists Victor M. Rios, Greg Prieto, and Jonathan M. Ibarra set out to understand how police respond to changing expectations of police conduct in their interactions with Latinx communities.

To examine how the goal of friendly civilian encounters occur in practice, the authors spent five months observing a Gang Suppression Team (GST) in a mid-sized California city. Additionally, they interviewed gang-associated Latinx civilians who interacted with the GST. Although many researchers have studied police bias against Black communities, Rios and colleagues focus on the Latinx community, a largely overlooked group in the literature on racial profiling. 

Rios and colleagues identify a continuum of policing tactics. These range from cordial and cooperative engagement styles – mano suave (Spanish for soft hand) – to more abusive and punitive tactics in which officers frisk civilians and use physical force to display dominance – mano duro (hard hand). These varying and often contradictory approaches to policing signal recognition of changing expectations of law enforcement. However, the authors find that courtesy policing, or the turn to respectful and cordial methods, is often used to justify more punitive approaches. Officers approach these encounters “interactionally,” integrating new practices alongside tactics that reflect ingrained racist biases.However, the authors find that courtesy policing, or the turn to respectful and cordial methods, is often used to justify more punitive approaches.

In recent years, police leaders have expressed a desire to repair relationships with Latinx communities and other historically marginalized groups. Yet the legitimacy policing continuum leaves space for existing biases and racist practices to shape interactions with overpoliced communities. The years-long debate over excessive policing has underscored the need for systemic change. Many activists have called for the outright abolition of police and law enforcement, while other advocates and policymakers favor reform in engagement styles, such as bans on techniques like the chokehold. However, as this article demonstrates, surface-level reforms without structural change can leave room for existing biases, amounting to little more than “a velvet glove sheathing an iron fist.”

Gig workers, such as Uber drivers or Instacart deliverers, face challenges when attempting to transition to full-time work. But the category of “nonstandard” work is complex and includes individuals like freelancers, self-employed workers who operate on a project-to-project basis. Freelancers often have a high level of skills, autonomy, and pay, but they also experience low job security and meager benefits. In a recent paper, Quan Mai set out to examine how employers assess a history of freelancing in job candidates. 

The study had two parts. First, a field experiment tested the effect of a history of freelancing on the likelihood of getting called for an interview. The experiment sent out approximately 12,000 applications to 6,000 real marketing, sales, or administrative assistant job postings in 50 urban areas. Each job posting received a set of applicants who were matched on qualifications but varied in terms of whether the last job held was full-time employment, freelance employment, or unemployment. Mai also interviewed 42 hiring managers to probe for why they might be less likely to hire freelancers than other applicants. 

Mai found that employers were 30% less likely to call back applicants currently freelancing than those who were currently employed full-time. In interviews, hiring managers indicated two reasons why they may be less likely to hire individuals with a history of freelancing. The first reason is that job skills can be harder to verify. A history of freelancing might indicate high or low skills, and that uncertainty makes it less likely for hiring managers to advance freelancers to the next round of a job search. The second, and likely more consequential, reason is that freelancing sends a negative signal about devotion, stability, and loyalty. Hiring managers, simply put, are concerned that freelancers won’t be committed to the job long term. 

Employers are looking for signals about competence and commitment when they are evaluating resumes. A history of freelancing sends uncertain signals of competence and strong negative signals of commitment, leading to a disadvantage in the search for full-time work. This study adds to our understanding of nonstandard work, especially with respect to what temporarily taking on nonstandard work might mean for long-term employment prospects. A history of freelancing sends uncertain signals of competence and strong negative signals of commitment, leading to a disadvantage in the search for full-time work.

Although public awareness of sanctuary has increased dramatically in the last few years, sanctuary cities have actually existed since the 1980s. Sanctuary jurisdictions are areas with policies that limit federal and local level cooperation in regards to immigration enforcement. The impacts of sanctuary policies are only beginning to be understood, but one outcome has emerged already: their impact on crime reporting. New research suggests that victims of crime are more likely to report their victimization when they reside in a sanctuary city.

In a new article, Ricardo Martínez-Schuldt and Daniel Martínez analyze 35,000 incidents of violent crime victimization and 135,000 incidents of property crime in 40 of America’s largest metro areas from 1980 to 2004. They find that Latinos and Latino-Americans are 12% more likely to report violent crime victimization when they live in a sanctuary city. Interestingly, the authors did not find any evidence for other ethno-racial groups’ odds of reporting crime victimization.

The higher rates of violent crime reporting found by the authors indicate that victims are more likely to come forward when they have the basic protections offered in sanctuary cities. The fact that immigrant community members were more likely to notify the police when victimized suggests that sanctuary policies may help establish trust in local law enforcement agencies. Sanctuary policies are therefore important for achieving equal justice for victims of crime, in this case permitting Latinos to report crimes without fear of their or their loved ones’ potential deportation. Conversely, the absence of sanctuary policies may undermine trust and the perceived legitimacy of local criminal justice systems.The higher rates of violent crime reporting found by the authors indicate that victims are more likely to come forward when they have the basic protections offered in sanctuary cities.

Each March, we celebrate women’s history month. During this time we recognize influential women and highlight the various challenges and inequities that women face. Many scholars have shown that gender inequality predicts violence, specifically homicide, against women. Yet new research from Moore and colleagues suggests that gender inequality also predicts  homicide against men.

Constructing a database modeled after the UN Human Development Report, the authors calculated each US state’s gender inequality index based on health, empowerment, and labor market participation measurements. They also indexed homicide rates for each state using the FBI Uniform Crime Report. The authors find that as gender inequality increases, the total homicide rate also increases. That is, as a state becomes more unequal for women, more homicides are committed. These findings hold true even when male and female homicide are analyzed independently. For example, as gender inequality increases, the male homicide rate also increases.The authors find that as gender inequality increases, the total homicide rate also increases. That is, as a state becomes more unequal for women, more homicides are committed.

Previous studies have linked gender inequality to violence against women, either through women’s empowerment or through the backlash they face from men. Overall, scholars have found that as women gain political, social, and economic power, they are less likely to be targets of violence. This new study is important because it shows that gender inequality not only increases violence against women but increases violence against men as well.

Over 3 million Americans were targets, or victims, of violence in 2018. Yet, only half of the targets of nonlethal violence seek formal medical care. Why do some targets of violence avoid medical care? Keith L. Hullenaar and Michelle Frisco studied how adults make healthcare decisions after suffering injuries in violent incidents. 

Using the National Crime Victimization Survey from the past 20 years, the researchers identify three “situational factors” that influence a person’s decision to receive medical care. They find a victim is less likely to seek medical care if they have previously experienced violence, know the person who injured them, or if the incident was sexually violent.  In these instances, the target of violence may feel safer avoiding medical care altogether. Unfortunately this holds true even after controlling for race, gender, income, and healthcare coverage, when the individual has serious injuries.

The decision to seek medical care is not neutral or obvious in the face of injury but contextualized within relationships, risks, and consequences. While social connections are necessary for wellbeing, negative or abusive relationships can actively harm health. As this research demonstrates, “social relationships can have a dark side for health and health care use.” By understanding the social factors that can limit access to care, healthcare professionals can mitigate these risks and create better care conditions for targets of violence.The decision to seek medical care is not neutral or obvious in the face of injury but contextualized within relationships, risks, and consequences.

In 2019, nearly 72,000 Americans died from a drug overdose — more than car accidents or gun violence. Over 50,000 of those deaths involved opioids. Drug overdose deaths have been on the rise for the past twenty years, with deaths increasing fourfold. 

Katherine Beckett and Marc Brydolf-Horwitz wanted to know whether states had altered drug policies in response to the opioid crisis. The researchers reviewed US state sentencing statutes between 2010-2016, as well as drug arrest and imprisonment records in a similar time frame. With the rise of the opioid crisis, the authors hypothesized that the drug war is de-escalating and that White drug users would see the greatest decline in punishment. The War on Drugs that began in the 1970s overwhelmingly targeted Black communities, contributing to the rise of police brutality and mass incarceration. What they found surprised them. 

Contrary to their prediction that White drug users would disproportionately benefit from policy changes, drug arrests decreased more sharply for Black people in the last decade. While Black people remain considerably overrepresented in drug arrests, 31 percent fewer Black people were arrested for drugs in 2018 than in 2007. Further, the number of Black people incarcerated in state prisons due to a drug conviction fell by 53% between 2012 and 2017.Contrary to their prediction that White drug users would disproportionately benefit from policy changes, drug arrests decreased more sharply for Black people in the last decade.

Beckett and Brydolf-Horwitz think geography could explain this decline. Drug arrest and imprisonment rates decreased in urban areas but increased in suburban and rural areas. Since urban areas are typically more racially diverse, this geographic trend could explain why Black people were arrested and imprisoned at lower rates. This trend could also explain why drug arrest and imprisonment rates did not fall for White people, because many suburban and rural areas remain predominantly White. 

While further research is needed to understand these shifting patterns in drug arrests, the most recent War on Drugs appears to be slowing down. And this decline is significantly narrowing the racial disparities between Black and White drug arrests. The racial injustices of previous drug scares and the tragedies of the opioid crisis cannot be undone, but these trends demonstrate that meaningful changes are underway in state drug policies.