DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY

Wealth—a household’s assets minus its debts—is an important indicator of child well-being. Higher household wealth is related to better academic achievement, behavior, and health among children. Yet a sizeable share of U.S. children, including a majority of Black and Hispanic children, grow up in households with very low levels of wealth, and wealth inequality among households with children is rising even faster than among the general population. This volume of RSF, edited by social policy experts Christina Gibson-Davis and Heather Hill, provides the first comprehensive examination of the contours and consequences of wealth inequality for children under the age of 18. The contributors consider the vast racial and ethnic disparities in wealth and how those disparities affect child well-being.

Contributors Fabian Pfeffer and Nora Waitkus find that child wealth inequality is far worse in the U.S. than in other industrialized countries. Editors Gibson-Davis and Hill show that a relatively small group of American parents—mostly White—control the lion’s share of wealth, with Black and Hispanic parents having only pennies on the dollar for every dollar of White parental wealth. Nina Bandelj and Angelina Grigoryeva show how White parents with above median wealth are more likely than other parents to practice “financially intensive parenting,” saving and borrowing in ways that promote child achievement. Portia Miller and colleagues demonstrate that family wealth is related to both academic and behavioral development throughout childhood and adolescence and that wealth helps buffer the negative effects of low family income. Jordan Conwell and Leafia Zi Ye find equalizing wealth is not sufficient to eliminate race- and ethnic-based gaps in academic achievement: even among families with the same levels of wealth, Black and Hispanic children often have significantly worse scores than Whites.

High levels of childhood wealth inequality are not inevitable; they are the consequence of laws and practices that favor wealth accumulation among few, primarily White, families. Studies by Margot Jackson and colleagues and by Katherine Michelmore and Leonard Lopoo find that large-scale income-support programs, the EITC and Medicaid, have positive spillovers onto asset accumulation, but policies designed to fundamentally alter the distribution of wealth among families with children will require more expansive changes to the tax code and program asset caps.

This issue of RSF expands our understanding of wealth inequality and its effects on children, and provides important insights into policies and practices that either directly or indirectly boost wealth acquisition among child households.

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY

Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial group in the U. S. and the only majority foreign-born group in the country. With immigration fueling most of the growth, Asians are projected to surpass Hispanics as the largest immigrant group by 2055. Yet, “Asian” is a catch-all category that masks tremendous diversity. In this issue of RSF, sociologist Jennifer Lee, political scientist Karthick Ramakrishnan, and an interdisciplinary roster of experts present nuanced narratives of Asian American integration that correct biased assumptions and dispel dated stereotypes. The result is an issue that makes an original and vital contribution to social science research on this under-studied population.

Rather than treating Asian Americans as a monolithic group, the contributors use the 2016 National Asian American Survey to pinpoint areas of convergence and divergence within the U.S. Asian population. Despite their diversity, Asian Americans share many attitudes, behavior, and experiences in ways that exceed expectations based on socioeconomic status alone. This paradox—of convergence despite divergence in national origins and socioeconomic status—is the animating question of this issue of RSF. Contributors Janelle Wong and Sono Shah find strong political consensus within the Asian American population, particularly with regard to a robust government role in setting public policies ranging from environmental protection to gun control to higher taxation and social service provision, and even affirmative action. Analyzing where policy opinions converge and diverge, Sunmin Kim finds that while many Asian Americans support government interventions in health care, education, and racial justice, some diverge sharply with regard to Muslim immigration. Lucas G. Drouhot and Filiz Garip construct a novel typology of five subgroups of Asian immigrants spanning class, gender, region, and immigrant generation to show how different subgroups contend with the effects of racialzed othering and inclusion simultaneously at play. Van C. Tran and Natasha Warikoo analyze both interracial and intra-Asian attitudes toward immigration and find diversity among Asians’ views by national origin: as labor migrants, Filipinos support Congress increasing the number of annual work visas; as economic migrants, Chinese and Indians support an increase in annual family visas; and as refugees, Vietnamese are least supportive of pro-immigration policies.

By turning a lens on the diverse U.S. Asian population, this issue of RSF unveils comprehensive, compelling narratives about Asian Americans and advances our understanding of race and immigrant integration in the 21st century.

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY

The notorious Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson made state-sanctioned racial segregation the law of the land in 1896. While the civil rights movement and subsequent Supreme Court decisions in the twentieth century did much to mitigate its effects, its consequences reverberate in ways large and small today. This volume of RSF revisits the legacy of the decision on its 125th anniversary to consider the connection between constitutionally imposed segregation, institutionalized white supremacy, and enduring racial inequality. Edited by john a. powell, Samuel L. Myers, and Susan T. Gooden—eminent scholars in constitutional law, economics, and public administration respectively—the volume includes contributions from an interdisciplinary roster of experts, each offering fresh insights on the doctrine of “separate but equal” as it relates to citizenship, colorism, and civil rights in the United States.

The contributors grapple with a central overarching question: How is it that a court decision from 125 years ago still has such an enduring impact on racial disparities? john a. powell provides a nuanced overview of the legal context of the case to show that segregation was not only about separating people by race but primarily about preserving white supremacy. The wide latitude for judicial interpretation granted to judges means that who decides matters, and today, just as much as in 1896, the justices sitting on the Supreme Court matter. Thomas J. Davis discusses how control over personal identity lay at the heart of Plessy, and how its denial of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms reverberates today. From sex and marriage to adoption, gender recognition, employment, and voting, persistent discrimination turns in various degrees on state authority to define, categorize, and deny freedom of personal identity. Looking at the enduring educational impact of “separate but equal,” which was not entirely rectified by the outlawing of school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, Dania V. Francis and William A. Darity Jr. link ongoing within-school segregation to the legacy of racialized tracking born from white resistance to desegregation. They demonstrate how a short-term, concerted effort to increase the number of Black high school students taking advanced courses could lead to long-term benefits in closing the educational achievement gap and eliminating institutionalized segregation within our schools.

This issue of RSF corrects and expands the narrative around Plessy, and provides important lessons for addressing the nation’s continuing racial travails. It is ideal for use by scholars, community leaders, and policy makers alike.

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY

Monetary sanctions—fines, fees, costs, and other financial penalties imposed on individuals when they encounter the criminal legal system—can lead to a cascade of negative effects for individuals, families, and communities. Because people are not released from criminal legal supervision until such penalties are fully paid, monetary sanctions prolong supervision, make probation violations more likely, escalate sanctions for new criminal convictions, and can result in incarceration for nonpayment. Such debts also make it more difficult for defendants to pay for essential expenses, such as food, housing, healthcare, and childcare. In this special double issue of RSF, sociologists Alexes Harris, Mary Pattillo, and Bryan L. Sykes and an interdisciplinary roster of contributors examine how financial penalties generate a plethora of collateral consequences.

The 17 articles in this double issue are the culmination of five years of research in California, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Texas, and Washington. Together they represent the first cross-state study of monetary sanctions. Issue 1 looks at how the system of monetary sanctions operates, while Issue 2 examines the social consequences of such sanctions. Among the compelling findings documented: High rates of incarceration economically damage states, leading some jurisdictions to sue incarcerated individuals for the cost of jail/prison stays to mitigate the fiscal harm. Imposing monetary sanctions extends beyond the penal code and into the civil realm, blur-ring distinctions between civil and criminal law, with broad implications for how observed racial disparities are constructed. People of color, indigenous communities, immigrants—both documented and undocumented—and women are uniquely impacted by the system of monetary sanctions. The racially disparate impact of monetary sanctions intensifies the aggressive policing of Black and Latinx neighborhoods because these racial groups typically find it more difficult to pay. Individuals and families receiving cash and non-cash public assistance are significantly more likely to owe monetary sanctions and are less likely to pay them, prolonging their surveillance by the state. The monitoring and collection of fines, fees, and other costs extends and deepens the punishment of nonpayers and individuals reentering society, and warps the very legal institutions that legislate and implement these practices.

This volume of RSF provides a timely examination of how monetary sanctions permanently bind people who are poor to the judicial system and provides comprehensive documentation of a complex, two-tiered legal system that imposes high costs on already burdened groups.

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY - Part 1

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY - Part 2

Nearly 46 million Americans live in rural counties—areas with small populations that are often located far from large cities. Yet we know relatively little about how living in a rural area influences child and adolescent life trajectories and adult outcomes when compared to their urban counterparts. In this special double issue of RSF, sociologist Shelley Clark, epidemiologist Sam Harper, and agricultural economist Bruce Weber, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors look at the impact that growing up rural has across the lifespan, examining both the challenges and advantages of growing up in rural America.

The 15 articles in this double issue explore the effects of rural life on family, educational attainment, economic security, and health. Issue 1 looks at the impact of rural families and schools on children’s and adolescents’ educational aspirations and wellbeing. Jennifer Sherman and Kai A. Schafft find that while rural gentrification brings needed resources to struggling communities, it can also exacerbate educational inequality. Jessica C. Drescher and colleagues reveal that only modest differences in educational outcomes exist between rural and non-rural students. Ryan Parsons shows that rural students with college aspirations, particularly students of color, incur social and emotional costs in pursuing upward mobility not experienced by their urban counterparts, such as having to permanently relocate to more advantaged areas.

Issue 2 examines transitions to adulthood and the longer-term influences of growing up in rural areas on adults’ health and economic attainment. Emily Miller and Kathryn Edin find that low-income rural young adults have children and marry earlier than their peers, but achieve other markers of adulthood, such as leaving the parental home, more slowly and often only tentatively. Robert D. Francis shows that rural, working-class men employ various strategies to improve their employment opportunities that support their existing identities, such as obtaining credentials to be truck drivers or mechanics. For example, they pursue additional education and training in fields that will allow them to continue to hold traditionally masculine, working-class jobs, such as obtaining credentials to be truck drivers or mechanics. Evan Roberts and colleagues find that growing up on or moving to a farm were associated with better health outcomes. Emily Parker and colleagues find that rural residents who live in counties that receive a higher amount of federal funding and moved from their home county in adulthood were more likely to achieve higher educational attainment and earnings than those in counties that received less funding.

This issue of RSF provides a more nuanced understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of growing up in rural areas and how it shapes the life trajectories of rural Americans.

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY

The twenty-first century has seen dramatic shifts in the nature of work, including a decrease in economic security and job opportunities for low-skilled workers. At the same time, the nature of families has also changed significantly, including a delay and decrease in marriage and the development of new types of complex family structures. These changes in work and family have contributed to a rise in inequality, with many lower-income families experiencing poverty and economic hardship as a result. Yet, public policy has not adapted to address these issues. In this issue of RSF, sociologists Marcia J. Carlson, and Christopher Wimer, developmental psychologist Ron Haskins, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors examine the growing needs of low-income families and explore both the extent to which public policy effectively serves them and how it can be improved.

The nine articles in this issue examine various aspects of contemporary work and family life for low-income families, the challenges they face, and whether current policies help to mitigate these challenges. Sigrid Luhr and colleagues find that unpredictable work schedules were associated with increased difficulty arranging childcare, work-life conflict, and missed work for working mothers. Elizabeth O. Ananat and colleagues show that Emeryville, California’s Fair Workweek Ordinance decreased working parents’ schedule unpredictability, and improved their well-being without reducing worker hours. Pamela Joshi and colleagues find that less than a quarter of low-income, full-time working families earn enough to cover a basic family budget, compared to two-thirds of all full-time working families. Katherine M. Michelmore and Natasha V. Pilkauskas reveal that nearly 60% of children in lower-income families reside in households with a complex family structure that may result in difficulty filing for important tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that can help increase their incomes. Jennifer Randles shows that income and public aid are insufficient for many mothers to cover the cost of one of children’s basic needs, diapers, and suggests policies to help bridge this gap in the face of widespread economic insecurity.

This issue of RSF illuminates the many obstacles faced by lower-income families due to changes in the labor market and family pat-terns as well as the ways in which public policy can better respond to alleviate these obstacles.

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY - Part 1

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY - Part 2

Status—a form of inequality based on esteem, respect, and honor—affects how people are treated in all aspects of their lives, including in schools, workplaces, politics, and even the family. It shapes people’s access to valued outcomes in life, such as income, education, and health. However, status is poorly understood and its significance in the construction of inequality is often underestimated. In this special double issue of RSF, sociologist Cecilia L. Ridgeway, social psychologist Hazel Rose Markus, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors examine how status functions in society and its role in inequality.

Issue 1 demonstrates that status is fundamental to inequality and shows that it is different from other forms of inequality. Tali Mendelberg presents a theory of how status functions in politics and differentiates the potent symbolic value of achieving greater esteem from status-seeking as a means to obtain resources, such as income, assets, or property. Biko Koeing finds that Trump voters were motivated not only by a perceived loss of status, but by the belief that this loss was unjust. Fabien Accominotti and colleagues assess the characteristics of status hierarchies and find that those with greater clarity, rigidity, and order have greater inequality between high and low status members.

Issue 2 examines how status is created and reinforced through cultural norms and in our relationships with one another. Hilary Holbrow finds that the gender pay gap is nearly three times greater in companies where low-status support roles are held primarily by females. Natasha Quadlin finds that college graduates who are perceived to be wealthy are also perceived to be more intelligent than they would be if they were perceived to be members of a lower socioeconomic group. Annette Lareau finds that married women often behave in ways—such as disengagement from financial matters or downplaying their own financial knowledge—that sustain their husband’s status as economic expert of the family. Bianca Manago and colleagues find that prior contact and group interaction between White, Black, and Mexican Americans decreases White anxiety about working with Black and Mexican Americans, but does not increase Whites’ perceptions of Blacks’ and Mexican Americans’ competence. Status interventions during interaction, however, do increase Whites’ perceptions of Mexican Americans’ competence and their influence in the group. Lehn Benjamin finds that staff at nonprofit organizations who share control and establish common ground with their clients reduce status hierarchies between staff and clients.

This issue of RSF sheds light on status as a powerful social force which pervades our lives, and demonstrates its role in creating and preserving inequality.

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY

In the spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic created large-scale disruptions in American society almost overnight. Yet the federal government provided little coordination or guidance in the face of the crisis. State and local governments found themselves primarily responsible for enacting policies and communicating information about the virus with the public,resulting in a wide variety of responses to the pandemic, including in public health recommendations and mandates. In this issue of RSF sociologist Beth Redbird, political scientist Laurel Harbridge-Yong, communications expert Rachel Davis Mersey, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors explore how social and political factors shaped the initial responses to the pandemic and how this impacted individuals and communities.

The 11 articles in this issue examine how information about the pandemic was disseminated, the disparate impacts of COVID-19 on different groups, and the government’s response to the pandemic. Courtney Page-Tan and colleagues find that people who relied on information from close social networks and trusted formal institutions, such as the CDC, were more likely to engage in behavior aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19, such as staying home and avoiding crowded areas. Laura E. Evans and colleagues find that while Native Americans were disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, states in which Native Americans had greater representation and political power in state politics saw fewer COVID-19 cases on tribal lands. They also find that there were fewer COVID-19 cases on tribal lands with strong networks of community-based and tribally controlled health facilities. Claire Kamp Dush and colleagues find that individuals who identify as non-White or non-heterosexual experienced higher levels of COVID-19 stress and racial trauma stress, both of which are associated with poorer mental health outcomes. Sarah James and colleagues find that state variation in the collection and publication of COVID-19 data reflected state capacity. Yet the main driver of variation in state policy response and implementation of mitigation measures was primarily partisanship. Elizabeth Suhay and colleagues find that trust in federal, state, and local government all fell during the first year of the pandemic. However, individuals with more trust in state government and local health officials were more likely to engage in protective health behaviors, while those with higher trust in the federal government were less likely to engage in such behaviors.

While the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic will continue for years to come, this volume of RSF begins the investigation into how the pandemic has altered social, cultural, and political dynamics in American society.

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY - ISSUE 1

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY - ISSUE 2

Suburbs are home to almost half of all Americans and have undergone dramatic demographic shifts over the past 20 years. Yet, suburbs remain understudied, and we know little about the socioeconomic changes taking place in these communities. In this special double issue of RSF, R. L’Heureux Lewis-McCoy, Natasha Warikoo, Stephen A. Matthews, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors examine how suburbs have evolved and the growing inequality within and between them.

Issue 1 looks at the diversification of suburbs as well as inequality in suburban housing. Kasey Zapatka and Van C. Tran find that cities and suburbs in the New York City metropolitan area have seen a significant decline in segregated neighborhoods but that suburbs have seen a more dramatic decline. Devin Q. Rutan and colleagues reveal that the number of suburban evictions has steadily risen over time, even as urban evictions have remained stable. Jennifer Girouard examines the passage of a Massachusetts law, Chapter 40B in 1969, intended to ensure affordable housing is built in the suburbs. Local residents opposed to the law used tactics such as creating narratives of the town being victimized by predatory developers to resist the law and the development of affordable housing.

Issue 2 examines suburban schools, how social supports function in suburban areas, and suburban politics. Shruti Bathia and col-leagues find that between 2000 and 2015, suburban Latinx children’s exposure to white peers declined. Scott W. Allard and Elizabeth Pel-letier reveal that the nonprofit safety net is less developed in suburban areas than in urban centers, particularly those that have high levels of poverty and larger Black populations. Brenden Beck shows that suburbs with large Black populations also rely the most on fine-and-fee revenue, and further that municipalities that rely more on monetary sanctions have more police killings. Ankit Rastogi and Michael Jones-Correa find that the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election depended on turnout in heavily Black suburban precincts, which voted overwhelmingly for Biden, as well as Asian and Latinx precincts, which also supported Democrats.

This volume of RSF investigates the underexamined and pressing issue of inequality in suburbs and explores how it develops within and between suburban communities.

DOWNLOAD A FREE DIGITAL COPY

The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare stark structural inequalities along the lines of race and ethnicity, gender, and class in the United States. Federal, state, and local governments responded with policies to help mitigate the potential devastation with varying success. In this issue of RSF, co-published with The JPB Foundation, public policy scholar Steven Raphael, sociologist Daniel Schneider, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors examine the effectiveness of government response on the socioeconomic consequences of the pandemic.

The 11 articles in this issue examine the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and federal and local responses to the crisis on social safety net usage, unemployment insurance (UI), parenting and gender disparities, housing, and experiences with the criminal justice system. Marianne P. Bitler and colleagues find that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) pandemic benefit increases were less generous to Black recipients. This was because Black recipients were more likely than other groups to have received the maximum benefit amount prior to the pandemic and the emergency allotment policy increased payments to the maximum amount for many recipients but provided no additional increase to those already receiving the maximum. Alex Bell and colleagues show that states with more liberal UI policies, such as higher weekly benefit amounts, saw higher rates of UI access during the pandemic, suggesting that policy played an important role in driving disparities in U.S. access across states. Liana Christin Landivar and colleagues reveal that remote schooling led to reduced employment among mothers compared to fathers and women without children, with Black mothers experiencing the largest reduction in employment. Vincent J. Reina and Yeonhwa Lee find that low-income renters who received emergency rental assistance during the pandemic had lower arrears, a lower likelihood of having rent-related debt, and a lower likelihood of experiencing debilitating anxiety. Samantha Plummer and colleagues show that individuals leaving jail or who had criminal cases during the early phase of the pandemic suffered high levels of housing and food insecurity as well as joblessness, but those with mental illness and substance abuse problems experienced the highest levels of material hardship.

This issue of RSF sheds light on how the pandemic and the cor-responding government response have both reinforced and reshaped socioeconomic inequality in the United States.