Policies in consideration of the future Schiller?s answers Policy implications??

 www.phwiki.com

 

The Above Picture is Related Image of Another Journal

 

Policies in consideration of the future Schiller?s answers Policy implications??

Clark Atlanta University, US has reference to this Academic Journal, Family Size in addition to Family Structure Lecture 12 Subtitle: Trends in Births in addition to Births Rates Are the poor poor because they have too many babies? No. Although Schiller opens this chapter alongside the accusation that the poor have too many babies, he concludes that most large families ?were in or near poverty prior so that a change in family size.? (p. 138) Are the poor poor because they fail so that maintain stable families? After demonstrating that single parent families of all races are at much greater risk of living in poverty, Schiller concludes that, ?. . . Family breakup cannot be identified as a major cause of poverty,? in addition to that ?. . . factors other than early childbirth are the primary cause of high poverty rates,? among never-married mothers. (p. 137),

 Spero, Roberta Clark Atlanta University www.phwiki.com

 

Related University That Contributed for this Journal are Acknowledged in the above Image

 

Policy implications?? Why then do our policies focus on reducing illegitimacy (PRWORA)? Why don?t they focus on reducing family size? Schiller?s answers Because family structure (and family size) deepen in addition to prolong poverty. Large, single parent families account in consideration of a disproportionate share of the long-term poor, in addition to may contribute so that multi-generational poverty. Policies in consideration of the future Children cannot be ?returned? once they are born. Therefore policies focus on children not yet born. What incentives exist so that discourage child birth among the poor? Are these policies likely so that succeed? Why do the poor have children? Can the policies have an impact on these reasons?

What is a birth rate? The number of births born per 1,000 women. Can be calculated in consideration of all women in addition to in consideration of subgroups (j) defined by race, marital status, in addition to occupation in consideration of example, but not in consideration of ages 15-44. BR=Number of birthsj/number of womenj where subscript j denotes the jth subgroup. Changes in birth rates Falling birth rates can be explained by declining numbers of births and/or increasing membership in the subgroup. Falling birth rates do not necessarily imply a decrease in the number of births. Rising birth rates can be explained by increasing numbers of births and/or decreasing membership in the group. Rising birth rates do not necessarily imply an increase in the number of births. What is a fertility rate? The total fertility rate is the number of births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime if, at each year of age, they experience birth rates occurring in the specified year. A total fertility rate of 2,110 represents ?replacement level? fertility in consideration of the total population under current mortality conditions (assuming not net immigration).

Photosynthesis!!!!

Trends in Fertility rates, cont. Fertility rates in consideration of all women in the US have been rising (with slight vacillation) since 1983: From 1,799 so that 2,012 in 2002 Fertility rates fro white women have increased over this period (from 1,741 so that 2,028) while those in consideration of black women have fallen (2,066 so that 1,991) Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States (SAUS), Table 77, p. 8, available at census.gov/statab/www/ Trends in births The number of live births increased from 3,612,000 in 1980 so that 4,022,000 in 2002. The trend is increasing births in consideration of every racial category. (Source: SAUS, table 74, p. 6) Trends in birth rates Birth rates are falling in consideration of all women: From 16.7 in 1990 so that 13.9 in 2002 The downward trend is true of women in all racial categories. Birth rates are falling in consideration of women less than 25. Birth rates in consideration of women 30-49 years are rising. There is no discernable trend in consideration of women 25-29 years. (Source: SAUS, Table 74, p. 6)

Trends in Teen births The number of teen births is falling: From 533,000 (1990) so that 422,000 (2003) (Source: SAUS, Table 74, p. 6) The percentage of all births so that teen mothers is falling: From 12.8% (1990) so that 10.8% (2002) (Source: SAUS, Table 80, p. 9) Teen births rates are falling in consideration of all age groups (15-17 in addition to 18-19) in addition to races: From 59.9 (1990) so that 41.7 (2002) (Source: SAUS, Table 81, p. 10) Trends in births so that Unmarried Women The total number of live births so that unmarried women is rising: From 1,165,000 (1990) so that 1,366,000 (2003) By race: The number of births so that white unmarried women is up: 647,000 so that 904,000 The number of births so that black unmarried women is down: 473,000 so that 405,000. (Source: SAUS, Table 82, p. 10) Trends in births so that Unmarried Women, cont. By age: The number of births so that women less than 20 is falling: 361,000 so that 347,000 The number of births so that unmarried women 20 years in addition to older is rising: 804,000 so that 1,1019,000. (Source: SAUS, Table 82, p. 10)

Trends in births so that Unmarried Women, cont. The percentage of births so that unmarried mothers is rising: From 26.6% (1990) so that 34.0% (2003) (Source: SAUS, Table 80, p. 9) The percentage of all births outside of marriage born so that white mothers is rising: From 55.6% in 1990 so that 66.2 in 2003 The percentage of all births outside of marriage born so that black mothers is falling: From 40.6 in 1990 so that 29.6 in 2003 (Source: SAUS, Table 82, p. 10) Trends in births so that Unmarried Women, cont. The percentage of white babies born outside of marriage is rising: From 16.9% in 1990 so that 28.5% in 2003. The percentage of black babies born outside of marriage is rising much less dramatically: From 66.7 in 1990 so that 68.2 in 2003 (Source: SAUS, Table 82, p. 10) Other relevant birth trends The percentage of low birth weight babies (less than 2,500 g. or 5 lb. 8 oz.) is rising slightly: From 7.0% so that 7.8% in 2002 The percent of mothers alongside prenatal care in the first trimester is rising: From 74.2 in 1990 so that 83.7% in 2002 (Source: SAUS, Table 82, p. 10)

Birth rates by family income Source: SAUS, Table 88, p. 13 Birth rates by income, cont. Birth rates in consideration of women alongside family incomes less than $10,000 (95.8) are almost twice that in consideration of women in families alongside incomes of $75,000 in addition to more (54.8). Births rates fall off sharply between two sets of income brackets: Less than $10,000 so that $10,000-19,999, in addition to $20,000-24,999 so that $25,000-29,999. (Source: SAUS, Table 88, p. 13) Abortions in addition to abortion rates Half of all pregnancies so that American women are unintended; half of these end in abortion.? A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions. 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s; 61% have one or more children; 67% have never married; 57% are economically disadvantaged (living below 200% of the poverty line); 88% live in a metropolitan area; in addition to 78% report a religious affiliation.

Abortions in addition to abortion rates, cont. Both the number of abortions in addition to abortion rates (abortions per 1000) have declined steadily since 1980: The number of abortions fell from 1,554,000 in 1980 so that 1,293,000 in 2002 The abortion rate fell from 29.3 in 1980 so that 20.8 in 2002 Source: SAUS, Table 93, p. 16 Abortions in addition to abortion rates, cont. This decline was not shared equally among all groups abortion rates increased among economically disadvantaged women: In 2001, 57% of women having abortions were economically disadvantaged (living below 200% of the poverty line). guttmacher /tables/3422602charts.pdf Women having an abortion are predominantly of modest means Source: Jones RK, Darrock JE in addition to Henshaw SK, ?Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of woman obtaining abortions in 2000-2001,? Perspectives on Social in addition to Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226-235.

Abortions in addition to abortion rates, cont. Abortions in addition to abortion rates, cont. The percentage of abortions accounted in consideration of by blacks in addition to other women of color is climbing as the overall number of abortions falls: From 30% in 1980 so that 44.5 % in 2001 Women of color were 3.1 times more likely so that abort a pregnancy in 2001 than were white women Women of color in two parent families were 1.38 more more likely so that live in poverty than whites Women of color in single parent families were 1.98 percent more likely so that live in poverty than whites Source: SAUS, Table 93, p. 16 Policies in consideration of the future Children cannot be ?returned? once they are born. Therefore policies focus on children not yet born. What incentives exist so that discourage child birth among the poor? Are these policies likely so that succeed? Why do the poor have children? Can the policies have an impact on these reasons?

Additional Questions on Chapter 7 Should we pass laws that discourage or penalize adults in consideration of having children than they can afford? How would we determine how many children an adult could afford? Why are children living in single-parent homes more likely so that be poor? Additional Questions on Chapter 7, cont. On page 130, Schiller writes, “Where two parents exist in the family, one parent can devote full-time so that labor-market activity while the other is free so that combine household in addition to labor-market activity.” Does this allocation of market in addition to housework maximize income in the household? Should it be the model in consideration of working couples? Do most working couples arrange their home in addition to market lives this way? Additional Questions on Chapter 7, cont. Why is the work of Darity in addition to Myers, in addition to Wilson in addition to Neckerman important in consideration of our understanding in consideration of the increasing number of families headed by single females? What does Schiller mean when asserting that, “Single parenthood has transformed the demographic profile of America in addition to feminized poverty”?

Spero, Roberta Managing Editor

Spero, Roberta is from United States and they belong to Managing Editor and work for Church Executive Magazine in the AZ state United States got related to this Particular Article.

Journal Ratings by Clark Atlanta University

This Particular Journal got reviewed and rated by Abortions in addition to abortion rates, cont. Abortions in addition to abortion rates, cont. The percentage of abortions accounted in consideration of by blacks in addition to other women of color is climbing as the overall number of abortions falls: From 30% in 1980 so that 44.5 % in 2001 Women of color were 3.1 times more likely so that abort a pregnancy in 2001 than were white women Women of color in two parent families were 1.38 more more likely so that live in poverty than whites Women of color in single parent families were 1.98 percent more likely so that live in poverty than whites Source: SAUS, Table 93, p. 16 Policies in consideration of the future Children cannot be ?returned? once they are born. Therefore policies focus on children not yet born. What incentives exist so that discourage child birth among the poor? Are these policies likely so that succeed? Why do the poor have children? Can the policies have an impact on these reasons? and short form of this particular Institution is US and gave this Journal an Excellent Rating.