Race and the Local Politics of Punishment in the New World of Welfare

Fording, Richard C.; Soss, Joe; Schram, Sanford F.

doi:10.1086/657525

Cited by 83 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While qualitative and theoretical methods have been the primary strategies for exploring intersectionality, quantitative work outlining the conditional and multiplicative effects of social statuses can further knowledge about larger scale patterns of intersectionality (e.g., Fording, Soss, and Schram 2011;Logan 2010;Schram at al. 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gendering (Non)Religion: Politics, Education, and Gender Gaps in Secularity in the United States

Baker

Whitehead

2015

Social Forces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender gaps in religiosity among Western populations, such that women are more religious than men, are well documented. Previous explanations for these differences range from biological predispositions of risk aversion to patriarchal gender socialization, but all largely overlook the intersection of social statuses. Drawing on theories of intersectionality, we contribute to the cultural and empirical analysis of gender gaps in religiosity by documenting an interactive effect between gender, education, and political views for predicting religious nonaffiliation and infrequent attendance at religious services among Americans. For highly educated political liberals, gender gaps effectively disappear, such that men and women are almost equally likely to be secular (or religious). The results have implications for the long-standing disputes about the gendered "nature" of religiosity and highlight the importance of multiple intersecting statuses and modalities in shaping aggregate patterns of religiosity and secularity.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gendering (Non)Religion: Politics, Education, and Gender Gaps in Secularity in the United States

Baker

Whitehead

2015

Social Forces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regimes structure the ideological frameworks and schemas that policymakers, bureaucrats, and the public use to narrate the causes of social problems and orient their attitudes toward particular styles of intervention or governance (DiMaggio 1997;Foucault 2003;Garland 2001;Simon 2009). Policy regimes have clear effects on states' approaches to social welfare (Brown 2013b;Esping-Andersen 1990;Fording, Soss, and Schram 2011;Fox 2010;Hooks and McQueen 2010) and criminal justice (Barker 2006;Beckett 1997;Beckett and Western 2001;Campbell and Schoenfeld 2013;Gottschalk 2006;Lacey 2010;Lynch 2009;Page 2011).…”

Section: Child Protection and Policy Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saving Children, Controlling Families: Punishment, redistribution and child protection

Edwards¹

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study shows that state efforts at child protection are structured by the policy regimes in which they are enmeshed. Using administrative data on child protection, criminal justice, and social welfare interventions, I show that children are separated from their families and placed into foster care far more frequently in states with extensive and punitive criminal justice systems than in states with broad and generous welfare programs. However, large welfare bureaucracies interact with welfare program enrollment to create opportunities for the surveillance of families, suggesting that extensive and administratively complex welfare states engage in "soft" social control through the surveillance and regulation of family behavior. The article further shows that institutionalization, a particularly restrictive form of foster care placement, is least common in states with broad and generous welfare regimes and generally more common under punitive regimes. Taken together, these findings show that policy regimes influence the interaction between families and the state through their proximate effects on family structure and well-being and through institutional effects that delimit the routines and scripts through which policymakers and street-level bureaucrats intervene to protect children.

show abstract

“…Scholars have also drawn attention to the role of racial stereotypes in shaping social policy choices (Fellowes & Rowe, 2004;Fording, Soss, & Schram, 2011;Gais & Weaver, 2002;Soss et al, 2001). Soss, Fording, and Schram (2008) theorize that when race is salient in policy debates, policymakers turn to racial group reputations to evaluate policies.…”

Section: State Political and Economic Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advocacy for the Poor

Phinney

2016

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While a large body of research examines cross-state variation in social policy, few studies systematically examine the policy influence of organizations that advocate on behalf of people living in poverty. This article examines relationships between state advocacy communities and policy choices following the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), or welfare reform. Using an original data set of states' advocacy communities, political and economic characteristics, and welfare policy choices, the article analyzes whether a state's advocacy community is associated with its decisions to reduce the government's commitment to low-income families on one hand and enact policies providing additional supports to families on the other. The analysis reveals that significant relationships exist for both types of policies, suggesting that organizational advocates may play a role in shaping state-level social policy decisions.

show abstract

Race and the Local Politics of Punishment in the New World of Welfare

Cited by 83 publications

References 56 publications

Gendering (Non)Religion: Politics, Education, and Gender Gaps in Secularity in the United States

Gendering (Non)Religion: Politics, Education, and Gender Gaps in Secularity in the United States

Saving Children, Controlling Families: Punishment, redistribution and child protection

Advocacy for the Poor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About