Are You Kidding Me?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent on the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action in 2023, cited a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) concluding that black infants are more likely to survive if they are cared for by black doctors than white doctors. But a recent study using the same data suggests that race was not the real factor. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by George J. Borjas, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, to discuss his recent paper co-authored with Robert VerBruggen, “Do Black Newborns Fare Better with Black Doctors? The Limits of Measuring Racial Concordance.” Originally part of a project analyzing the fragility of empirical findings in social science, George’s study reanalyzes the same data used in the PNAS study to see whether the same result emerged. He and VerBruggen found that if the data is adjusted for low birthweight, the correlation between race of the doctor and infant survival disappeared. Their research has now been published by the National Academy of Sciences. George discusses how the narrative about the original study persists even when new data has called it into question. Resources● Do Black Newborns Fare Better with Black Doctors? The Limits of Measuring Racial Concordance | George J. Borjas and Robert VerBruggen ● Are Black Newborns More Likely to Survive with Black Doctors? | George J. Borjas and Robert VerBruggenShow Notes● 00:47 | How did you become interested in the topic of mortality rates among black newborns? What did you find in your study?● 05:50 | Why did your study find different results using the same data as the earlier one?● 07:57 | Why did the original authors not include low birthweight as a factor in their study?● 08:48 | What did you find about the distribution of doctors to women whose infants had low birthweight?● 11:01 | Have you shared this new finding with the original authors of the study?● 13:35 | Given that low birthweight is a universally accepted factor in infant mortality, are you surprised that the original result that black infants do better when they are matched with black doctors was so widely accepted?● 17:17 | Has your study received the same kind of attention as the original study?● 18:40 | Can we empirically answer the question of whether the specialties of doctors and their respective races is the driver of better results for black infants, rather than just the race itself?

How do we combat historically low fertility rates? While having fewer children has been correlated with higher rates of education among women, a significant group of highly educated women are still choosing to have big families. What is different about these women, and what can they teach us about the nature of parenthood and the importance of children?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Catherine Pakaluk, economist and associate professor at The Catholic University of America, to discuss her recent book, Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth. In researching her book, Dr. Pakaluk interviewed women with a college education who also have five or more children with their current spouse. The vast majority of mothers she spoke with viewed raising children as their first priority. This was true of their husbands as well. Work and career were the secondary goals that supported their ability to be parents. These mothers also viewed motherhood through the lens of their faith, whether Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or Jewish. They shared the belief that children are blessings from God. Dr. Pakaluk discusses the number of unintended, “spillover” benefits she observed among these families, such as increased independence in their children and a less materialistic approach to life, as well as what the implications of her research could be for public policy. Resources -Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth | Catherine Pakaluk-What Happens When Every Aspect of Parenting Is a Choice? | Naomi Schaefer RileyTime Stamps-00:37 | Why did you decide to begin this research?-02:30 | What were the criteria for the women included in your study?-04:44 | What were these women like, and what was the motive behind their choices to have large families?-09:20 | How do we shift the conversation around the declining birth rate from technical interventions to the deeper themes you are talking about?-13:13 | How do these women think about their choices with regard to their career? Did they make the choice from a very early age, and how did their decisions fit in with their husbands’ decisions?-17:57 | How do you reconcile the strong role religion plays in the lives of these women with the rising secularism of young people we are seeing today?-20:50 | How does the religious atmosphere in these families affect their view on material things? What are the other unintended benefits of having large families?

Much like other governmental agencies, child welfare systems are long overdue for a digital upgrade. But how can we ensure the technological tools implemented truly equip caseworkers and supervisors to meet the needs of children and families?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Sixto Cancel, the founder and CEO of Think of Us, a tech nonprofit working to reform the child welfare system in the US. Inspired by his own story in foster care, where one, outdated sentence in his case file determined the trajectory of his time in the system, Sixto founded Think of Us to improve the tech landscape of the foster care system. From the need to incorporate assistive AI into case management to improving federal incentives to encourage innovation, Sixto discusses the key areas in need of reform. Resources• Taking Child Welfare into the 21st Century | Naomi Schaefer Riley, Ian Rowe, and Greg McKay• Big Data Can Save Kids | Naomi Schaefer Riley• Think of Us | Sixto CancelShow Notes• 00:52 | What is the technology landscape of child welfare, and are the systems being used up to date?• 03:07 | What is the origin of your name, Sixto Cancel? • 04:06 | What about your story led you down this path to work toward better experiences for youth in foster care?• 06:38 | What could systems be doing differently to take into account all of the options for foster youth?• 09:28 | How are you now using virtual support services for youth getting ready to age out of the system?• 12:15 | Many child welfare agencies contract with different providers to meet their needs. How is this currently working, and could it be more efficient?• 15:32 | Why was the federal funding you secured ineffective to upgrade the technology systems within child welfare agencies?• 17:08 | What would be the better approach? Should the federal government still be involved, or would that run the same risk of having just one large entity dominating the space and discouraging innovation?• 20:05 | Are you planning to expand the direct service component of your organization?• 21:22 | Thinking about the data you’ve collected so far, what would say is the biggest mismatch between what people need and what is being offered to them?

Because of the Family First Prevention Services Act passed in 2017, residential care facilities, or “group homes,” for foster youth have lost significant funding—leading to the closure of many residential treatment options. Many advocates of the policy believe that placement with families are always the best option for kids. But what about the numerous foster youth who report immense benefits from their time in residential care? This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Bruce Henderson, a former professor of psychology at Western Carolina University for over 40 years. Drawing on his background in child psychology, Bruce conducted a comprehensive review of the research on residential care facilities to understand how time spent in these homes affects foster youth. This research led to the publishing of his recent book, Challenging the Conventional Wisdom about Residential Care for Children and Youth. In this episode, Bruce explains the findings of his research and why he believes residential care must continue to be supported as an option for foster youth. Lastly, he shares a way to support The Black Mountain Home for Children and Families, a very impactful residential care home for foster youth in Black Mountain, North Carolina, that has suffered significant damage from Hurricane Helene. We encourage our listeners to give as they are able. Resources• Challenging the Conventional Wisdom about Residential Care for Children and Youth | Bruce B. Henderson• A Critical Dialogue on Residential Care for Children and Youth: What We Really Know and Questions of Quality | Bruce B. Henderson and James P. Anglin• Why Foster Children Are Sleeping in Offices and What We Can Do About It | Naomi Schaefer Riley et al. Show Notes• 00:54 | What motivated your interest in this research topic?• 02:32 | What is the Family First Prevention Services Act?• 05:44 | Why does residential care carry so much stigma today?• 07:09 | What were your findings when you looked at residential care facilities in other countries?• 09:06 | Is there a version of Family First that you would have supported?• 10:51 | What are the circumstances that make it possible for residential care to have a positive impact on a child’s life?• 13:17 | Do attitudes around race play a role in the policy conversation around residential care?• 13:51 | How do you make appropriate comparisons when you look at this research and what studies have you found helpful when evaluating the effects of residential care on foster youth?• 17:14 | Does research show if the type of organization plays a role in the success of the residential home (i.e., faith-based, etc.)?• 18:21 | Do you envision a situation where we start to rethink whether we can really do without residential care? Can we go back?• 21:06 | Where does the financing come from for these facilities and programs?• 24:10 | How to Help The Black Mountain Home for Children and Families