Do Faith-Based Foster Care Agencies Respond Equally to All Clients?

Q4 Social Sciences Korean Journal of Policy Studies Pub Date : 2022-06-30 DOI:10.52372/jps37204
Mattie Mackenzie-Liu, David J. Schwegman, Leonard M. Lopoo
{"title":"Do Faith-Based Foster Care Agencies Respond Equally to All Clients?","authors":"Mattie Mackenzie-Liu, David J. Schwegman, Leonard M. Lopoo","doi":"10.52372/jps37204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent laws and court rulings have increased legal protections for faith-based organizations that refuse to provide services to certain individuals based on deeply held religious beliefs. Using data from a 2019 email correspondence study, we examine if religiously-affiliated foster care agencies respond to inquiries from white same-sex couples differently from public and secular foster care agencies. This paper provides preliminary, descriptive results that public sector discrimination can vary by the type of organization that is providing the service. We find suggestive evidence that religiously-affiliated foster care agencies are less likely to respond to same-sex male couples. However, this study lacks sufficient statistical power to find conclusive evidence of differential treatment by type of organization, which highlights the challenges of conducting correspondence studies that examine intersectional discrimination. Despite this limitation, we argue that it is increasingly important for scholars of public administration and public policy to examine and understand how discrimination in the public sector may vary by group membership or organizational type. While exploring this intersectional discrimination may be limited in certain contexts, understanding how and why organizations and public servants are more or less likely to respond to particular groups is an important first step in designing interventions or crafting policies to reduce differential treatment.","PeriodicalId":36346,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Policy Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52372/jps37204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Recent laws and court rulings have increased legal protections for faith-based organizations that refuse to provide services to certain individuals based on deeply held religious beliefs. Using data from a 2019 email correspondence study, we examine if religiously-affiliated foster care agencies respond to inquiries from white same-sex couples differently from public and secular foster care agencies. This paper provides preliminary, descriptive results that public sector discrimination can vary by the type of organization that is providing the service. We find suggestive evidence that religiously-affiliated foster care agencies are less likely to respond to same-sex male couples. However, this study lacks sufficient statistical power to find conclusive evidence of differential treatment by type of organization, which highlights the challenges of conducting correspondence studies that examine intersectional discrimination. Despite this limitation, we argue that it is increasingly important for scholars of public administration and public policy to examine and understand how discrimination in the public sector may vary by group membership or organizational type. While exploring this intersectional discrimination may be limited in certain contexts, understanding how and why organizations and public servants are more or less likely to respond to particular groups is an important first step in designing interventions or crafting policies to reduce differential treatment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于信仰的寄养机构对所有客户的回应是平等的吗?
最近的法律和法院裁决增加了对信仰组织的法律保护,这些组织拒绝为某些根深蒂固的宗教信仰的个人提供服务。利用2019年电子邮件通信研究的数据,我们研究了宗教附属寄养机构对白人同性伴侣询问的回应是否与公共和世俗寄养机构不同。本文提供了初步的描述性结果,即公共部门歧视可能因提供服务的组织类型而异。我们发现有启发性的证据表明,与宗教有关联的寄养机构不太可能对同性男性伴侣做出回应。然而,这项研究缺乏足够的统计能力来找到组织类型差异待遇的结论性证据,这突出了进行检查交叉歧视的通信研究的挑战。尽管存在这种限制,但我们认为,对于公共行政和公共政策学者来说,研究和理解公共部门的歧视如何因群体成员或组织类型而异,变得越来越重要。虽然探索这种交叉歧视在某些情况下可能是有限的,但了解组织和公务员或多或少可能对特定群体作出反应的方式和原因是设计干预措施或制定政策以减少差别待遇的重要第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Korean Journal of Policy Studies
Korean Journal of Policy Studies Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
GOVERNMENT, STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISE, and LIBERALIZATION of UNIVERSAL POSTAL OBLIGATION SERVICES The Moderating Effect of Politicians’ Power on the Correlation Between Total Grants and Unit Grants in Special Grants Distribution Black and Blue: Black Police Officers’ Implicit and Explicit Biases in Split-Second Decisions to Shoot or Not to Shoot Unarmed Black Civilians Role of the State in Dealing With Fake News on Social Media Public Participation and Trust in Government: Results From a Vignette Experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1