Suchergebnisse

This paper is an investigation into why U.S. states have enacted, banned, or continued with the status quo regarding in-state tuition policies for unauthorized youth. Using data from multiple government and nonprofit sources, a series of multinomial logistic regressions are estimated to explain the determinants of state behavior across the country in 2008. This question of why some states pass or ban in-state tuition legislation for unauthorized migrants is important for several reasons. From a public finance perspective, not much is known of the relationship between fiscal and state budgets and the decision of a state to pass legislation regarding undocumented citizens. From an economic stimulus perspective, does poverty or per capita spending in higher education explain this behavior? The findings may help us understand how fiscal, political, public mood, and demographic indicators affect states actions toward in-state tuition policies and why some members of Congress may be pushing for a federal education policy such as the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. ; Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy

ObjectiveDevelop and test measures of risk of deportation and mixed‐status families on women, infants, and children (WIC) uptake. Mixed‐status is a situation in which some family members are U.S. citizens and other family members are in the United States without proper authorization.MethodsEstimate a series of logistic regressions to estimate WIC uptake by merging data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Survey with deportation data from U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement.ResultsThe findings of this study suggest that risk of deportation is negatively associated with WIC uptake and among mixed‐status families; Mexican‐origin families are the most sensitive when it comes to deportations and program use.ConclusionOur analysis provides a typology and framework to study mixed‐status families and evaluate their usage of social services by including an innovative measure of risk of deportation.

Scholarship in the area of group identity has expanded our understanding of how group consciousness and linked fate operate among racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States. What is yet to be tested is whether the measures employed adequately capture the multidimensional theoretical constructs associated with group consciousness across racial and ethnic populations. To address this question, we make use of the 2004 National Political Study ( N = 3,339) and apply principal components analysis and exploratory factor analysis to assess whether measures used for both group consciousness and linked fate are interchangeable, as well as whether these measures are directly comparable across racial and ethnic populations. We find that the multidimensional approach to measuring group consciousness is a sound strategy when applied to African Americans, as the dimensions fit the African American experience more powerfully than is the case for non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, and Asian populations. Our analysis suggests that scholars interested in exploring group identity among the African American population have fewer analytical concerns in this regard than those working with other populations where the underlying components associated with group consciousness appear to be operating differently.

Scholarship in the area of group identity has expanded our understanding of how group consciousness and linked fate operate among racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States. What is yet to be tested is whether the measures employed adequately capture the multi-dimensional theoretical constructs associated with group consciousness across racial and ethnic populations. To address this question we make use of the 2004 National Political Study (n=3,339) and apply principle components analysis and exploratory factor analysis to assess whether measures used for both group consciousness and linked fate are interchangeable, as well as whether these measures are directly comparable across racial and ethnic populations. We find that the multidimensional approach to measuring group consciousness is a sound strategy when applied to African Americans, as the dimensions fit the African American experience more powerfully than is the case for Non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics, and Asian populations. Our analysis suggests that scholars interesting in exploring group identity among the African-African population have fewer analytical concerns in this regard than those working with other populations where the underlying components associated with group consciousness appear to be operating differently.

Evidence is emerging of the pandemic disproportionately impacting communities of color. This study investigates mental health distress among essential workers during the coronavirus pandemic across race and ethnicity. We evaluate individual responses to the patient health questionnaire and general anxiety disorder questionnaire using a unique, nationally representative data set. Our findings suggest that essential healthcare workers reported the highest rates of mental health distress at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic. However, when evaluated across race and ethnicity, we find that Black essential healthcare workers disproportionately report symptoms of anxiety; while, Hispanic essential healthcare workers disproportionately report symptoms of depression. Additionally, we find that being a Black or Hispanic essential nonhealthcare worker is associated with higher levels of distress related to anxiety and depression. These findings highlight the additional dimensions to which Black and Hispanic Americans may be disproportionately affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Furthermore, it calls into question how the essential worker classification, compounded by US unemployment policies, is potentially amplifying the mental health distress experienced by workers.

This study examines how anti-immigrant policies affect the physical health of Latina/os in the United States. Merging two unique datasets: sum of anti-immigrant policies by state from 2005–2011 and a 2011 Robert Wood Johnson Center for Health Policy nationally representative sample of Latina/os (n=1,200), we estimate a series of logistic regressions to understand how anti-immigrant legislations are affecting the health of Latina/os. Our modeling approach takes into consideration Latinos' diverse experience, context that is widely overlooked in datasets that treat Latina/os as a homogeneous ethnic group. Our findings suggest that an increase in anti-immigrant laws enacted by a state decreases the probability of respondents reporting optimal health, even when controlling for other relevant factors, such as citizenship status, language of interview, and interethnic variation. The implication and significance of this work has tremendous impacts for scholars, policy makers, health service providers and applied researchers interested in reducing health disparities among minority populations.

Abstract
We explore the racial and ethnic politics associated with mask wearing early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Using panel and cross-sectional data from the National Panel Study of COVID-19 (n = 1,996) fielded in March and April 2020, we asked Americans about their self-reported race/ethnicity, their political party affiliation, and if they have worn a mask or scarf in public to stop the spread of the coronavirus. We also asked respondents who reported wearing a mask in public if they worry they might be mistaken for a criminal. Our logistic regression models found that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to wear a mask or scarf over their faces to prevent the spread of COVID-19 despite being more likely to worry about being criminalized by police or security while wearing a mask. We argue that proximal contact with the virus, because racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected by COVID-19, leads to increased willingness by people in these groups to protect themselves and others. Democrats were also more likely to wear masks compared with Republican respondents. and those living in Republican-led states were less likely to wear a mask in public and more likely to be criminalized for wearing a mask.
Was mask use during the early COVID-19 pandemic political? In our paper, we use panel and cross-sectional data from the National Panel Study of COVID-19 fielded in March and April 2020 when we asked Americans whether they had worn masks. We also asked those who wore a mask if they felt criminalized while wearing a mask. Our findings show that there are stark differences in mask use between demographic groups and worrying about being criminalized while wearing one.

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed all aspects of American life, including, for many, how we vote. We explore the question of who supports unrestricted absentee ballots during a pandemic. We argue that women are more likely to support absentee ballots because they allow for greater flexibility and minimize the potential for exposure. We test this theory using the National Panel Study of COVID-19 (n = 1,892), which asked respondents about their preferences for absentee ballots, their worry about the coronavirus, and their household composition. Using multinomial logistic regressions, we find that women are more likely to support allowing absentee ballots compared with more restrictive voting options and are more likely to say they support absentee ballots for all if they know someone who has contracted COVID-19. The policy implications for these findings are discussed along with other sociodemographic indicators in our analysis.

This study examines how anti‐immigrant policies affect the physical health of Latina/os in the United States. Merging two unique datasets: sum of anti‐immigrant policies by state from 2005 to 2011 and a 2011 Robert Wood Johnson Center for Health Policy nationally representative sample of Latina/os (n = 1,200), we estimate a series of logistic regressions to understand how anti‐immigrant legislations are affecting the health of Latina/os. Our modeling approach takes into consideration Latinos' diverse experience, a context that is widely overlooked in datasets that treat Latina/os as a homogeneous ethnic group. Our findings suggest that an increase in anti‐immigrant laws enacted by a state decreases the probability of respondents reporting optimal health, even when controlling for other relevant factors, such as citizenship status, language of interview, and interethnic variation. The implication and significance of this work has tremendous impacts for scholars, policy makers, health service providers, and applied researchers interested in reducing health disparities among minority populations.Related Articles

Sabia, Debra. 2010. "" Politics & Policy 38 (): 53‐80. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00228.x/abstract


Turner, Robert C., and
William Sharry. 2012. "." Politics & Policy 40 (): 983‐1018. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00392.x/abstract


Barnes, Nielan. 2011. "." Politics & Policy 39 (): 69‐89. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00283.x/full

AbstractImmigrant sentiment, measured by the number of state laws enacted to curb the flow of undocumented immigration or expand rights to immigrants, have been on a steady incline since September 11, 2001. Despite the increased attention to unauthorized immigration, little research has examined how immigrant policies are affecting group identity (i.e., linked fate). Linked fate is a form of collective group identity that develops when a group of people experience discrimination and marginalization. Using a unique database that merges the 2012 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (n= 934 Latinos) with the sum of state-level immigration policies enacted from 2005 to 2012, this study is the first to examine the direct relationship between immigrant climate and linked fate. Results from our multinomial logistic regressions indicate that the linked fate among Latinos increases as the number of punitive immigration laws in a state increases, controlling for a vector of control variables. Consistent with our theory regarding differential impact, our findings also suggest that immigration laws have a more pronounced influence on the linked fate of foreign-born Latinos.