The impact of child support enforcement policy on nonmarital childbearing

The interaction of welfare and child support regulations has created a situation in which child support policy's incentives that discourage unwed fatherhood tend to be stronger than its incentives that encourage unwed motherhood. This suggests that more stringent child support enforcement creates incentives that reduce the likelihood of nonmarital childbearing, particularly among women with a significant chance of needing public assistance in the event of a nonmarital birth and their male partners. We investigate this hypothesis with a sample of women from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, to which we add information on state child support enforcement. We examine childbearing behavior between the ages of 15 and 44 before marriage and during periods of non‐marriage following divorce or widowhood. The estimates indicate that women living in states with more effective child support enforcement are less likely to bear children when unmarried, especially if they are young, never‐married, or black. The findings suggest that improved child support enforcement may be a potent intervention for reducing nonmarital childbearing. © 2006 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

The Dutch parliamentary election of May 1986

After a rather uneventful election campaign, the results of the May 1986 Dutch parliamentary election were a surprise to virtually all involved. Since the introduction of regular opinion polling in the 1960s, no election has taken place when the polls were ‘wrong’. However, in 1986 last minute shifts that were stronger than had ever occurred in the Netherlands produced results that differed significantly from the predictions based upon the polls published immediately prior to the election.     

The effect of child support on welfare exits and re‐entries

Much of the literature on welfare dynamics has focused on the effects of recipient characteristics and state‐level characteristics such as welfare benefits and economic conditions; there has been very little analysis on the effects of child support. This paper, using the 1979‐1996 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, examines whether child support affects the likelihood of leaving and re‐entering welfare. The results indicate that strong child support enforcement is important in helping young mothers exit and stay off welfare. Women with $1000 child support payments in the previous year were 18 percent more likely to exit welfare and 12 percent less likely to re‐enter welfare. Compared with women in states that pursued child support least vigorously, women in states that had passed extensive child support enforcement legislation and that spent more money on child support enforcement were 79 percent more likely to exit welfare and about 60 percent less likely to re‐enter welfare. © 2002 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Deconstructing “Force and Fraud”: An Empirical Assessment of the Generality of Crime

Gottfredson and Hirschi (A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1990) have proposed a general theory of crime to explain a set of behaviors they refer to as acts of force and fraud. Central to their theory is the claim that force and fraud are both manifestations of the individual's unrestrained pursuit of short-term gratification. At the same time, research from numerous disciplines suggests that the correlates of violence differ somewhat from those of property crime. The present study therefore uses data from the National Youth Survey to explore whether force and fraud can legitimately be viewed as manifestations of a single underlying construct among American adolescents. Overall, findings from confirmatory factor analyses suggest that they cannot. Rather, they suggest that multi-factor models of force and fraud improve significantly upon the fit of single-factor models and that force and fraud may therefore reflect overlapping, but empirically distinct, constructs.     

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY FAMILY ISSUES IN THE ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT

Justice 2002, a strategic agenda for the Arizona court system over the next five years, has the goal to build public trust confidence in the Arizona courts. A focus of Justice 2002 is the protection of children, families, and communities. One of the number of projects that have been initiated is the establishment of The Committee to Study Family Issues in the Superior Court (Committee). On October 22, 1997, Chief Justice Thomas A. Zlaket established the Committee and charged the members to: "[E]xamine the manner in which cases involving family issues, including cases involving minor children, presently are processed and determined in the Superior Court,… leading to improvement in the manner in which these cases are resolved in the court system; and report to the Arizona Judicial Council its findings and recommendations…" This article is a summarization of the Final Report presented to the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) in December, 1998. The reader will find that the report is rather general. The Committee has functioned under the assumption that an implementation committee would be formed to work out the details, should the AJC choose to adopt the recommendation to establish a Family Court in Arizona.     

THE FIFTH WORLD CONGRESS ON FAMILY LAW AND THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Editor's note on the 5^th World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights held in Halifax Nova Scotia, August 23–26, 2009     

Changing views of jury power

This article highlights the major events and empirical research in the continuing debate over the power and competence of the jury in civil and criminal trials. The concept ofjury nullification, the power of the jury to return a verdict based upon their moral conscience despite the evidence and the law, is used as a convenient filter to discuss the legal and behavioral assumptions about jury power and performance. The legal, historical, and even behavioral contexts reflect a bipolar theme in the level of trust Americans have exhibited towards the jury system. One pole reflects the notion that juries lack predictability and rationality in their verdicts and are moved by emotional concerns. Antipodally, juries have been thought to reflect an historical competence at applying common sense notions of equity and rationality to conflicted and ambiguous cases. This article traces the history of these two views of jury power and competence. A critical review of the empirical research that may inform the debate about the jury's competence in both criminal and civil arenas is provided.