Politics, culture, and political crime: Covariates of abortion clinic attacks in the United States

This study examined crime and violence against abortion clinics, testing elements of several theories that may help explain the variation of such attacks. The study theoretically and methodologically improved upon the prior research on abortion-related crime and violence. Theoretically, it investigated previously unexamined hypotheses from the social movement literature that may be relevant to this type of behavior. Methodologically, it used more careful measures for several variables, employed unique and heretofore ignored data bases, and examined hundreds of criminal acts across several types of crime (e.g., violence, vandalism, and harassment) directed at abortion clinics. Employing robust logistic regression and correcting for clustering of clinics by state, the study investigated the cross-sectional effects of state-level cultural and structural characteristics on anti-abortion crimes against clinics and staff. Results indicated that some crimes against clinics are more likely in areas where female empowerment is weaker, female victimization is more tolerated, and the anti-abortion movement has failed to reduce abortions.     

Child Care Subsidies and Employment Behavior Among Very‐Low‐Income Populations in Three States

Using merged administrative data from welfare reform evaluations in three states, we estimate the effects of child care subsidy use on the length of time it takes for a welfare applicant to move into substantial employment. Findings show that the use of a child care subsidy during an unemployed or marginally employed spell of welfare receipt is associated with between a 0.6 and 1.7 quarter (or 11% to 34%) reduction in the time to substantial employment in two of the three state samples. The positive influence of subsidy use on transitions to substantial employment is strongest for those welfare applicants with the lowest earnings who are mixing welfare and work prior to subsidy receipt.     

Federal Reimbursement for Mandates on State and Local Governments

One of the remedies sought by state and local officials for the growing burden of federal mandates is a mandate reimbursement law. A major purpose of mandate reimbursement is to deter Congress from imposing excessive costs on state and local governments by making it fully accountable for its actions. The paper begins by extending the economic theory of grants to mandates and reimbursed mandates. It goes on to assess the benefits and costs of mandate reimbursement, and to distinguish mandates that should be reimbursed, should a reimbursement program prove desirable, from those that should not. Then, using the economic theory of grants and mandates, the paper compares reimbursed mandates with two alternatives for accomplishing the same objective, compensating grants and procedural rules. It concludes that the latter are more promising than mandate reimbursement.