Brookings: Projects - Future of Children

Is There a Better Way to Prepare Disadvantaged Students for College?

Tue, 07 May 2013 09:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 7, 2013
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

A major barrier to college education for students from low-income families is that they are poorly prepared to do college work. Since the War on Poverty of the 1960s, the federal government has funded several programs to help prepare disadvantaged students to succeed in college. Evaluations show that these programs are at best only modestly successful.

On May 7, Princeton University and the Brookings Institution released the latest issue of The Future of Children—a journal that promotes effective, evidence-based policies and programs for children—which examines the state of postsecondary education in the United States. Journal co-editor Cecilia Rouse provided an overview of the issue’s contents. Ron Haskins of Brookings presented findings from an accompanying policy brief that proposes a plan to improve college preparation programs for students from disadvantaged families by consolidating them into a single grant program and requiring that funded programs be backed by rigorous evidence. Following their presentations, Harry Holzer of Georgetown University responded to the proposal from the policy brief. A panel of experts then discussed the proposed reform and offered their own thoughts on the value of postsecondary education for low-income students.

Video

Children’s Literacy: Raising the Bar

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:00:00 -0400

Event Information

October 2, 2012
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Good jobs in the nation’s 21st century economy require advanced literacy skills such as categorizing, evaluating, and drawing conclusions from written texts. The adoption of the Common Core State Standards by nearly all states, combined with tough literacy assessments that are now under development, will demonstrate that the literacy skills of average students fall below international standards and that the gap in literacy skills between students from advantaged and disadvantaged families is huge.

On October 2, Princeton University and the Brookings Institution released the latest issue of The Future of Children—a journal focusing on research and practice on vital children’s issues—which examines the teaching of literacy in American public schools. Journal co-editor Richard Murnane provided an overview of the issue’s contents. Ron Haskins of Brookings presented findings from an accompanying policy brief proposing a plan for closing the literacy gap between students from advantaged and disadvantaged families. Following their presentations, a panel of experts and advocates discussed the literacy gap and the plan for closing the gap.

Audio

Children’s Literacy: Raising the Bar

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

Pathways to the Middle Class: Balancing Personal and Public Responsibilities

Isabel V. Sawhill, Scott Winship and Kerry Searle Grannis — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:16:00 -0400

INTRODUCTION

The defining narrative of the United States of America is that of a nation where everyone has an opportunity to achieve a better life. Americans believe that everyone should have the opportunity to succeed through talent, creativity, intelligence, and hard work, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Our leaders share this support for opportunity. In a speech last fall, President Obama said that Americans should make sure that “everyone in America gets a fair shot at success.” Mitt Romney has repeatedly spoken about an opportunity society, where people can “engage in hard work, and pursue the passion of their ideas and dreams. If they succeed, they merit the rewards they are able to enjoy.”

Americans have an unusually strong belief in meritocracy. In other nations, circumstances at birth, family connections, and luck are considered more important factors in economic success than they are in the U.S. This meritocratic philosophy is one reason why Americans have had relatively little objection to high levels of inequality—as long as those at the bottom have a fair chance to work their way up the ladder. Similarly, Americans are more comfortable with the idea of increasing opportunities for success than with reducing inequality. When the American public is asked questions about the importance of tackling each, a far higher proportion is in favor of doing something about ensuring that more people have a shot at climbing the economic ladder than is in favor of reducing poverty or inequality.

One way of thinking about opportunity is in terms of generational improvement in living standards. Among today’s middle-aged Americans, four in five households have higher incomes than their parents had at the same age, and three in five men have higher earnings than their fathers. The extent to which this will be true for today’s children remains to be seen. More importantly, if everyone grows richer over time, but the economic fates of Americans are bound up in their family origins, then in an important sense opportunities are still limited. If a poor child has little reason to believe she can “grow up to be whatever she wants,” it may be of little comfort to her that she will likely make more than her similarly constrained parents. A better-off security guard may still have wanted to be a lawyer.

The reality is that economic success in America is not purely meritocratic. We don’t have as much equality of opportunity as we’d like to believe, and we have less mobility than some other developed countries. Although cross-national comparisons are not always reliable, the available data suggest that the U.S. compares unfavorably to Canada, the Nordic countries, and some other advanced countries. A recent study shows the U.S. ranking 27th out of 31 developed countries in measures of equal opportunity.

People do move up and down the ladder, both over their careers and between generations, but it helps if you have the right parents. Children born into middle-income families have a roughly equal chance of moving up or down once they become adults, but those born into rich or poor families have a high probability of remaining rich or poor as adults. The chance that a child born into a family in the top income quintile will end up in one of the top three quintiles by the time they are in their forties is 82 percent, while the chance for a child born into a family in the bottom quintile is only 30 percent. In short, a rich child in the U.S. is more than twice as likely as a poor child to end up in the middle class or above.

Why do some children do so much better than others? And what will it take to create more opportunity? The remainder of this paper addresses these two questions.

Downloads

Pathways to the Middle Class: Balancing Personal and Public Responsibilities

Authors

Isabel V. Sawhill
Scott Winship
Kerry Searle Grannis

Work and Family Balance

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:00:00 -0400

Event Information

October 5, 2011
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

With the continued entry of mothers into the workforce and a rising share of children living with single parents, many families are experiencing the pressures of finding balance between work and family lives. Unlike other nations with advanced economies, the U.S. has very modest government policies requiring employers to give their workers benefits such as paid family leave for illnesses or childbirth. Given the difficult state of the American economy and the large and growing federal deficit, prospects for federal legislation in the foreseeable future seem doubtful. These conditions suggest that state and local government as well as employers might play an increasingly important role in helping families deal with the demands of work.

On October 5, The Future of Children, a joint project of Princeton University and the Brookings Institution, released the latest volume of its journal. The volume and the accompanying policy brief review the problems encountered by working families and propose policies for both the public and private sectors aimed at reducing work-family pressures. The event began with an overview of the journal and the policy brief by Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University and Ron Haskins of Brookings. Following the overview, Maryella Gockel of Ernst & Young gave a keynote address on how her firm, known as a leader in family policies, deals with work-family issues. A panel of experts responded and discussed what businesses, communities and the federal government can do to assist working families.

After the program, the speakers took questions from the audience.

Read The Future of Children's "Work and Family" volume »

Audio

Work and Family Balance

Transcript

Event Materials

Participants

Panelists

Jane Waldfogel

Professor of Social Work
Columbia University

Maryella Gockel

Flexibility Strategy Leader
Ernst & Young

Heather Boushey

Senior Economist
Center for American Progress

Ellen Galinsky

President and Co-Founder
Families and Work Institute

While Some Immigrant Children Fall Behind, Others Prosper

Ron Haskins — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

At an event earlier this week on the economic future of immigrant children, Senior Fellow Ron Haskins discussed the complex issue of immigrants’ education and wages.

According to recent data, immigrants -- particularly recent immigrants from Mexico -- have very low rates of high school completion compared to native-born citizens. But overall, immigrants have relatively high rates of college graduation. Addressing the complexities of this issue, and improving education for all, would have a positive impact on the U.S. economy.

Authors

Ron Haskins

Image Source: © Danny Moloshok / Reuters

The Obama Administration’s Evidence-Based Social Policy Initiatives: An Overview

Jon Baron and Ron Haskins — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:08:00 -0400

Summary
This paper outlines the Obama administration’s plan to strengthen the evidence base for U.S. social policy.

The Obama administration has created the most expansive opportunity for rigorous evidence to influence social policy in the history of the U.S. government. No president or budget director for a president have ever been so intent on using evidence to shape decisions about the funding of social programs as President Obama and former Budget Director Orszag. The Obama plan to create evidence-based social policy initiatives turns the normal relationship between policy decision making and use of social science evidence on its head. Instead of evidence being on the outside of the decision making process trying to get in, Obama brings evidence inside from the beginning. The administration must still convince others that the use of evidence will improve policymaking and program outcomes, but the argument that evidence deserves a prime role in policymaking is being made by people inside the administration and they are arguing to retain an evidence-based approach as a fundamental part of the president’s legislative agenda, rather than fighting from the outside to insert evidence-based policies into the decision making process. Although less emphasized, the Obama plan for basing program decisions on rigorous evidence can be useful for cutting spending as well as funding new programs.

To read the full report please visit the National Endowment for Education, Technology and the Arts.

Downloads

Download the Full Article

Authors

Jon Baron
Ron Haskins

Publication: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

FamilyScape: A Brief Overview

Adam Thomas — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:54:00 -0400

FamilyScape is a cutting-edge policy simulation model of pregnancy and family formation. The model simulates the key antecedents of pregnancy (sexual activity, contraceptive use, and female fecundity) and many of its most important outcomes (e.g., childbearing within and outside of marriage, children’s chances of being born into poverty, and abortion). Behaviors and outcomes of interest within the model are simulated at the individual level and are then summed across the simulation population in order to produce aggregate estimates of our phenomena of interest. The individuals within the model are heterogeneous – each of them is assigned a set of demographic and behavioral characteristics that help to govern the various decisions that they will make over the course of the simulation. We use a population of individuals whose gender, age, race, education, socioeconomic-status (SES), and marital-status profiles are consistent with the characteristics of the members of a nationally-representative dataset.

Figure 1 diagrams FamilyScape’s overall structure and delineates the various stages of the simulation. During the first stage, we populate the model with a group of individuals whose demographic characteristics are nationally representative. In the second stage, opposite-sex relationships of varying duration are formed among some individuals. In the third stage, sexual activity (or lack thereof) is simulated among married and unmarried couples, and contraceptive use (or lack thereof) is simulated among couples who have sex. In the fourth stage, some sexually-active couples become pregnant, and each pregnancy eventually results either in a birth, a fetal loss, or an abortion. The model’s fifth and final stage accounts for the fact that each birth is either to a married couple or to a single mother. A poverty status is also assigned to each newborn child during the model’s final stage.

All of the model’s inputs are constructed using the results of extensive analysis of several different data sources. These estimates are used to simulate the share of people who are married; the share of unmarried people who are in relationships; the rate at which married and unmarried couples have sex; the frequency with which sexually-active couples use contraception; the types of contraception that they use; the frequency with which couples using various types of contraception become pregnant; the share of pregnancies that result in live births, fetal losses, and abortions; the typical gestation periods for each of these pregnancy outcomes; the share of live births that occur within and outside of marriage; and the share of births that occur within and outside of poverty.

FamilyScape is designed to produce realistic variation in these dynamics according to individuals’ demographic characteristics.

The model is validated by comparing its outputs (rates of pregnancy among teens and adults, the incidence of childbearing within and outside of marriage, the frequency of abortion, etc.) to the equivalent real-world data. It generally performs well in this regard, especially for the unmarried population. FamilyScape lends itself readily to policy simulations, since its inputs can be changed relatively easily under the assumption that a given intervention has a particular effect on individual behavior. Basic construction of the first release of the model has been completed, and it is now being applied to a broad array of policy analyses.

Downloads

Download the Full Overview, with Chart

Authors

Adam Thomas

The New Demography of Poverty: The Wisconsin Poverty Measure and Effects of Federal and State Policies in Wisconsin

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0400

ABSTRACT

This paper describes efforts to develop a more comprehensive and up-to-date measure of poverty in Wisconsin as a model for other states to follow. The Wisconsin model uses American Community Survey data to measure the level, depth, and trends in poverty and the effects on poverty of such programs as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) and refundable tax credits, as well as out-of-pocket health care costs and work-related expenses including child care. In many ways, the Wisconsin measure, which was unveiled in September 2010, is a preview of the forthcoming federal Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). However, the two measures differ in important respects. After a brief review of methodology underlying the Wisconsin measure, this paper focuses on a comparison of poverty across two vulnerable demographic subgroups, children and the elderly, and analyzes how specific federal and state policies affect low-income children and elderly in Wisconsin. Poverty rates in 2008 under the Wisconsin Poverty Measure are higher than official poverty rates for both children and the elderly, with child poverty rising from 13.3 percent to 13.6 percent and elderly poverty rising much more, from 7.1 percent to 10.4 percent. Our analysis suggests that child poverty would be even higher but for the Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP benefits, and that expansions in benefits under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 played a role in mitigating the rise in child poverty during the recession.

Downloads

Download the Full Paper

Authors

Julia B. Isaacs
Joanna Young Marks
Timothy M. Smeeding
Katherine A. Thornton

Publication: 2011 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America

Image Source: © Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Estimating the Effects and Costs of Three Pregnancy-Prevention Programs

Adam Thomas — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0400

ABSTRACT

This technical report documents some of the key assumptions underlying the analysis described in Thomas (“A Benefit-Cost Assessment of Three Strategies to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy.” Brookings Working Paper, 2011), which presents results from benefit-cost simulations of a mass media campaign encouraging contraceptive use, an evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention program, and an expansion in access to family planning services provided via Medicaid. These simulations are performed using FamilyScape, which is an agent-based simulation tool that allows the user to model the impacts of policy changes on family-formation outcomes. Each policy’s effects are estimated by comparing the results of simulations that were conducted under FamilyScape’s baseline assumptions to the results of simulations that were conducted using an alternative set of assumptions regarding the presumed effects of the policy in question on contraceptive use and/or sexual behavior. See Thomas and Monea (2009) for a thorough treatment of the simulation model’s baseline assumptions. In this report, I detail the key assumptions that underpin each of the policy simulations. More specifically, I discuss my assumptions regarding the costs and effects of each simulated policy. I do not discuss here the way in which these policies’ estimated benefits are monetized. Given the complexity of this topic, it is addressed in a separate report that is co-authored by Emily Monea (2011). I begin the discussion below by describing the simulations of a teen pregnancy prevention program, after which I discuss the simulations of expanded access to Medicaid-funded family planning services and a mass media campaign. I conclude by addressing a variety of technical issues that are relevant for all three sets of policy simulations.

Downloads

Download the Full Paper

Authors

Adam Thomas

Child Poverty During the Great Recession: Predicting State Child Poverty Rates for 2010

Julia B. Isaacs — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:54:00 -0500

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The country is slowly emerging from the Great Recession, the longest period of economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. As unemployment rates have risen, poverty also has risen. More than one in five children were poor in 2009, according to data released by the Census Bureau in September.

How much higher will child poverty be in 2010? Poverty statistics will not be released until next September, but many policy-makers and child advocates would like to have a sense of the child poverty rate now. Moreover they would like to know it not just nationally but also for their own state. A new issue brief by Julia Isaacs attempts to meet this need by providing predictions of child poverty, by state, ten months before the actual statistics will be released.

Between June 2009 and June 2010, the number of people receiving nutrition assistance (food stamp) benefits increased by 21 percent, or 6.7 million people, as monthly caseloads averaged over the first six months of the year skyrocketed from 33.5 to 40.3 million participants. This increase in nutrition assistance caseloads was widespread, affecting almost all states. In addition, unemployment rates remain high, and the average for 2010 to date is actually higher than the average for 2009 in most states.

From a model that combines current data on nutrition assistance and unemployment, Isaacs predicts that most states will see a rise in child poverty in 2010, with the increase averaging 1.3 percentage points across the states. According to these predictions, half the states (26 states) will have child poverty rates of 20 percent or higher in 2010, almost double the number of states (14) with poverty of 20 percent or higher in the pre-recessionary period of 2000-2007.

Nationally, the number of poor children is predicted to rise by nearly 1 million, from 14.7 million in 2009 to 15.6 million children in 2010. The national child poverty rate is estimated to increase 20.0 in 2009 to 21.3 in 2010. These predictions are subject to uncertainty, but provide an early glimpse of how children are continuing to be affected by the lingering effects of the Great Recession.

Downloads

Authors

Julia B. Isaacs

Publication: First Focus/The Brookings Institution

@ Brookings Podcast: Welfare's Transformation

Ron Haskins — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:27:00 -0400

Fourteen years ago, the nation’s welfare laws were changed and the federal guarantee of cash assistance to single mothers ended. In this week’s @Brookings podcast, Senior Fellow Ron Haskins says welfare was transformed, with child care assistance, tax credits and work requirements helping to move low-income parents into the workforce. With welfare reauthorization nearing, Haskins tells us more about the controversy and the issues facing policymakers today.

Subscribe to audio and video podcasts of Brookings events and policy research »

previous play pause next

mute unmute

@ Brookings Podcast: Welfare's Transformation 5:52

Right-click (ctl+click for Mac) on 'Download' and select 'save link as..'

Get Code

Copy and paste the embed code above to your website or blog.

Video

America's Welfare Transformation

Audio

@ Brookings Podcast: Welfare's Transformation

Preventing Child Abuse in an Age of Budget Deficits

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:00:00 -0400

Event Information

July 20, 2010
1:00 PM - 3:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

The archived video webcast of this event is now available here.

The goal of child abuse prevention programs is early detection of parenting problems, so parents can be enrolled in counseling and other social service programs. If early detection and prevention programs are effective, these programs can save public dollars that would otherwise be spent on treatment and associated social programs, including the possibility of removing children from their homes. Thus, prevention programs should be especially attractive during a time of tight state and local budgets.

On July 20, The Future of Children, a joint project between Princeton University and the Brookings Institution, held an event and online webcast to discuss ways that prevention programs can save money across a range of social programs. The event, planned in cooperation with Voices for America’s Children, featured experts who focused on both the practices and research that have been shown to be effective. Speakers also addressed the prospects that prevention services can be expanded during these difficult times.

Audio

Preventing Child Abuse in an Age of Budget Deficits

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20100720_preventing_child_abuse

Participants

Panelists

Christina Paxson

Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs, Princeton University

Moderator: Ron Haskins

Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Center on Children and Families

Rev. Darrell Armstrong

Founder & President, Institute for Clergy Training – Trenton, NJ

Richard P. Barth

Dean, School of Social Work, University of Maryland - Baltimore

Mary Coogan

Assistant Director, Association for Children of New Jersey

David Olds

Professor of Pediatrics & Director, Prevention Research, Center for Family and Child Health, University of Colorado - Denver

Transition to Adulthood

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:00:00 -0400

Event Information

April 27, 2010
9:00 AM - 10:30 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

Too many adolescents drop out of high school and then struggle with high rates of unemployment, incarceration, drug use and non-marital births. The high cost of these mistakes – both to the teens themselves as well as society – make a solid case for investing public funds in programs that have been shown to work, as well as in additional research on these disconnected adolescents and youth.

On April 27, The Future of Children, a joint project between Princeton University and the Brookings Institution, hosted an event to release a new journal, “Transition to Adulthood,” that is devoted to research and analysis of the challenges young people face in making the transition to adulthood in modern America. The event focused on describing and analyzing second-chance programs that aim to help high school drop-outs, and featured presentations by and discussions among researchers, community program operators and Obama administration officials.

Afterwards, speakers and panelists took questions from the audience.

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20100427_transition_to_adulthood

Participants

Panelists

Moderator: Ron Haskins

Co-Director, Center on Children and Families
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

Mary Waters

Professor of Sociology, Harvard University

Dan Bloom

Director, Health and Barriers to Employment Policy Area, MDRC

Jane Oates

Assistant Secretary of Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor

Juan Rangel

Chief Executive Officer, United Neighborhood Organization

Cecilia Rouse

Member, Council of Economic Advisers

The Role of High Schools in Preparing Disadvantaged Students for College

Thu, 14 May 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 14, 2009
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

Postsecondary education can help disadvantaged young people increase their economic opportunity. However, disadvantaged youth encounter barriers in qualifying for college, paying tuition, and ultimately succeeding. Many scholars, policymakers, and advocates have come to the view that high schools should do more to prepare disadvantaged students for the academic rigors of college and to help them select a college and apply for student aid.

On May 14, The Future of Children, a joint project between Princeton University and the Brookings Institution, will release a policy brief discussing the steps high schools should take to help low-income students prepare for postsecondary education. The policy brief is a companion to the most recent issue, America’s High Schools, which examines the reasons high schools are widely believed to be failing and proposes solutions. Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), the former superintendent of the Denver schools, will deliver the keynote address.

Event Materials:
A New Goal for America’s High Schools: College Preparation for All policy brief »
Future of Children »

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20090514_high_schools

Participants

Panelists

The Honorable Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

United States Senate

James Kemple

Executive Director, Research Alliance for New York City Schools

Cecilia Rouse (Moderator)

Member, Council of Economic Advisers

Michael J. Carter

Founder, President, and CEO
Strive for College

Mark R. Dynarski

Vice President
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Jenny K. Nagaoka

Associate Director for Postsecondary Studies
Consortium on Chicago School Research

Sheri Ranis

Senior Program Officer, Research & Data, U.S. Programs
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Welfare Benefits and Drug Use

Ron Haskins — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:00:00 -0400

Many states are considering legislation that would take benefits away from welfare, food stamp and unemployment benefit recipients who test positive for drug use. Senior Fellow Ron Haskins examines the proposed legislation and says in most cases taking away benefits would be counterproductive.

TRANSCRIPT

"First I would draw a sharp distinction between unemployment insurance and any welfare program because unemployment insurance as the name implies is insurance which means people have paid into it, actually employer pays it in, but it is on behalf of the worker. I think there might be even a legal challenge if you try to use failure on a drug test to take peoples unemployment insurance away. In fact I believe there have been court cases that have been decided that you couldn’t do it.

"Welfare is a little different, but I would still oppose that as well. For the simple reason I think our principles should be as a society, until someone has failed tests repeatedly or as a result of alcohol addiction or drug use or whatever has broken the law in someway or done things they shouldn’t do like mistreat their children—and we do have a number of laws about children that is a little bit different—but in this case you are doing random drug tests the person hasn’t necessarily done anything wrong; they could be working. We have millions of people in this country who are alcoholics who go to work every day. So to single this group out because we can, to take their benefits away, I think is not good policy. If we want to identify them it should be for the purpose of getting them the treatment and trying to get them off drugs. That is a legitimate purpose."

"...We take benefits away from people on some welfare programs because they refuse to work. The goal of the program is to help them get back in the workforce, so it's directly related to the purpose of the program. And if they refuse because they are obstinate or for whatever reason they can loose their benefits. And indeed hundreds and thousands people do loose their cash benefit every year because they refuse to work or participate in programs that prepare them to work. That is reasonable. Taxpayers have the right to expect that people are going to be self sufficient, and going to strive to be self sufficient. It is conceivable that their drug use could interfere with their work. If that could be demonstrated or if it were demonstrated that it led to some behavior that was illegal or dangerous, for example for their children, then that’s a different case. But to randomly drug test, and take that as evidence that they have failed in someway is a mistake."

Video

Positive Drug Test Welfare Recipients Need Treatment

Juvenile Justice

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:00:00 -0400

Event Information

October 15, 2008
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

American juvenile justice policy is in transition. After a decade of declining juvenile crime rates, the forces that fueled the "get-tough" reforms of the 1990s have waned, as has enthusiasm for the reforms that eroded the boundaries between juvenile and criminal court, exposing juvenile offenders to harsh punishments. As some politicians and some members of the public have come to question the effectiveness and expense of tough sentencing laws, more moderate policies are being considered at the state and federal level.

The antisocial acts that bring young people into contact with the justice system are often accompanied by other problems, most of which the justice system alone is ill-equipped to address. On October 15, a slate of panelists, including researchers, policy advisors, and advocates will discuss reforming juvenile justice to reflect these differences between adolescent and adult offenders. This event also marks the release of the latest volume of The Future of Children journal, "Juvenile Justice" published by Brookings and Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School.

Event Materials:
Juvenile Justice Policy Brief »
Future of Children Publication Info »


Ron Haskins at Juvenile Justice event		Hon. Denton Darrington at Juvenile Justice event

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20081015_justice

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

Laurence Steinberg

Distinguished University Professor and Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology, Temple University

Hon. Denton Darrington

Idaho State Senator
Chairman of the Idaho Senate Judiciary Committee

Shay Bilchik

Research Professor and Director, Juvenile Justice Reform and Systems Integration, Georgetown University Public Policy Institute

Christine Crooks

Legislative Assistant, Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE)

Jeffrey Fagan

Professor of Law and Public Health and Co-Director, Center for Crime, Community and Law, Columbia University

Kristin Henning

Professor of Law and Co-Director, Juvenile Justice Clinic, Georgetown University

Bart Lubow

Director of Programs for High-Risk Youth and their Families, Annie E. Casey Foundation

The Impact of the Mortgage Crisis on Children and Their Education

Julia B. Isaacs and Phillip Lovell — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:00:00 -0400

Introduction

We know that the mortgage crisis is wreaking havoc on the stock market, on the housing industry, and on our economy as a whole. But there are 2 million voiceless victims of this crisis about whom we hear little. Largely over the next 2 years, an estimated 2 million children will be directly impacted by the mortgage crisis as their families lose their homes due to foreclosures. These children are not just losing their homes, but they also risk losing their friends, schools, and in many ways, their childhood.

Acknowledging the Problem

When foreclosures force children from their homes, their education is disrupted, their peer relationships crumble, and the social networks that support them are fractured. Indeed, their physical health, as well as their emotional health and well-being, is placed at risk. As a result, our attention must turn to the unintended and often unnoticed impact of the credit crunch on our nation’s children and their education.

The Center for Responsible Lending projects that one out of every five subprime mortgages that has originated in the last two years will go into foreclosure. The silent sufferers of these foreclosures are the 1.95 million children and youth who are losing their homes, ranging from 1,000 children in North Dakota to 311,900 children in California (see textbox on page two). Our estimate is based on projected foreclosures of 2.26 million single-family homes, and is likely to be low because it does not include those children being evicted from rental units that are going into default, nor does it include children whose parents default on conventional loans.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Julia B. Isaacs
Phillip Lovell

Publication: First Focus

Pay-Day Lenders, Check Cashing Outlets and Other Alternative Financial Services

Rebecca M. Blank — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:00:00 -0400

A substantial number of low-income individuals make use of services within the alternative financial sector (AFS), particularly pay-day lenders and check cashing outlets. Pay-day lending has grown over the past 20 years, as has the use of Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs). Although the number of households without a checking account has fallen, currently about 12 million households do not have a checking account, and must rely on check-cashing services. Fellowes and Mabanta (2008) indicate that non-bank establishments collected $8.5 billion in fees in a recent year. The high cost of these services has led many observers to seek policies that would reduce the use of informal financial services among lower income households. This paper briefly reviews the reasons why individuals utilize AFS outlets, then discusses the policy options that could affect these decisions.

I. Why do low-income households use alternative financial services?

Before turning to a discussion of policies that would reduce reliance on informal financial services, it is important to understand why individuals utilize AFS providers rather than banks or other formal financial institutions. There are five primary reasons typically discussed.

A. Formal financial institutions provide services that are ill-fitted to the financial needs of low-income households. About 40 percent of payday loan recipients have bank accounts, suggesting that their payday loan provides a service that is not available from their bank (Elliehausen and Lawrence, 2001). About half of payday loan recipients claim to have considered a bank loan; many of these said that the payday loan involved an easier process; some also cited the convenient location of payday providers. Short-term loans to lower-income customers are simply not available through many local banks.

High-minimum-balance checking accounts with multiple fees may be very expensive for low-income individuals who experience frequent penalties for lower balances or for overdrafts. About half of the non-banked say either they don’t have enough money to start an account or the costs of an account are too high (Berry, 2005). About half of payday loan customers say their payday loan is cheaper than the cost of returned check fees (Elliehausen and Lawrence, 2001). Caskey (2005) argues that check-cashing outlets provide much more comprehensive services than banks (including money orders), while Berry (2005) indicates that 77 percent of those using check-cashing services say they are more convenient. A significant number of low-income households use both formal and informal financial providers for their transactions (Barr, forthcoming.)

Downloads

Download

Authors

Rebecca M. Blank

The Future of Children: Fall 2007 : The Next Generation of Antipoverty Policies

Isabel V. Sawhill and Ron Haskins, eds. — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Brookings Institution Press and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University 2007 200pp.

This semiannual journal provides research and analysis to promote effective policies and programs for children.

Contents include:

Toward a Mandatory Work Policy for Men
Lawrence Mead (New York University)

Rewarding the Work of Individuals: A Counterintuitive Approach to Reducing Poverty and Strengthening Families
Gordon L. Berlin (MDRC)

Reducing Nonmarital Births and Increasing Marriage to Reduce Poverty
Paul Amato (Pennsylvania State University) and Rebecca A. Maynard (University of Pennsylvania)

Next Steps for Federal Child Care Policy
Mark Greenberg (Center for American Progress)

Reducing Poverty through Preschool Interventions
Greg Duncan Northwestern University), Jens Ludwig (Georgetown University and Brookings), and Katherine Magnuson (University of Wisconsin)

Improving the Education of Children Living in Poverty
Richard Murnane (Harvard University)

Improving the Safety Net for Single Mothers Who Face Serious Barriers to Work
Rebecca Blank (University of Michigan)

A Health Plan to Reduce Poverty
Alan Weil (National Academy of State Health Policy)

ABOUT THE EDITORS

Isabel V. Sawhill

Ron Haskins

Ordering Information:

{9ABF977A-E4A6-41C8-B030-0FD655E07DBF}, 978-0-8157-5565-4, $24.95 Order

Fighting Poverty through Incentives and Work Mandates for Young Men

Ron Haskins — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Abstract

This brief examines two sets of public policies - wage subsidies and work requirements- that hold promise for helping young men increase their employment and earnings and which could alleviate many social problems, including crime, unemployment, nonmartial births, and poverty.

Introduction

It would be hard to imagine an environment less conducive to socialization than the one in which millions of boys in America grow up. Chief among the traditional agents and institutions by which a society nurtures its children and youth is the two-parent family. In a passage written in 1965 that has shaped thinking but not public policy for more than four decades, Daniel Patrick Moynihan foresaw the looming problem of boys growing up in femaleheaded families: "A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken homes, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future—that community asks for and gets chaos."

The decline of the family is not solely responsible for the rise in poverty, school dropout, and other problems associated with young men. Historically, the socialization efforts of the family have been supplemented and reinforced by schools, churches, peer groups, and civic groups and associations. But many of these forces for transmitting positive values and behavior are in decline, especially in low-income communities. Not only do half of all children and up to 85 percent of black children spend a considerable part of their childhood in a female-headed family, usually without the direct, day-to-day benefit of paternal influence, but many of them attend ineffective (some would say terrible) schools, which, far from providing a haven for healthy social relationships and learning, are often not even physically safe. The neighborhoods in which these children live are likewise often dangerous. Fears of crime and violence, aggravated by a lack of resources and committed adults, have caused extracurricular activities traditionally sponsored by schools and other community organizations to wither.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Ron Haskins

Publication: Future of Children Policy Brief