Pub Date : 2023-08-22DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11912
T. Aggarwal
At any given time, around half the incarcerated population in the United States works full-time. A large majority of incarcerated workers are engaged in “prison housework,” doing laundry, working in the kitchen, or providing janitorial services, etc. A smaller portion of individuals work in prison industries to produce goods and services for both government agencies and private corporations. National estimates for the annual value of prison and jail industrial output come to around $2 billion. Despite this, the average wage for incarcerated individuals working in state- owned industries is anywhere between $0.33 to $1.41 per hour. Mass incarceration and the prison industry have become seamlessly intertwined with America’s racially stratified economy. Wal-Mart, Victoria’s Secret, Boeing, Microsoft, and Starbucks are some of the many major U.S. companies that have partnered with prison industries in the past to profit off of free or underpaid labor. In the absence of clear Supreme Court ruling or guidance from Congress, it remains unclear whether incarcerated workers may be considered “employees” as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and therefore subject to the federal minimum wage protections. Without any guidance, lower courts have developed a patchwork of conflicting standards and formalistic dichotomies to address the issue of FLSA coverage for incarcerated workers. This Note analyzes the circuit split on the question of FLSA coverage and provides recommendations on how the Supreme Court should decide the issue. This Note goes on to advance a new “but-for” test for courts to adopt when deciding which kinds of incarcerated workers should be covered by the FLSA.
{"title":"PRISON LABOR AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: RESOLVING THE CIRCUIT SPLIT ON WHETHER INCARCERATED WORKERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE","authors":"T. Aggarwal","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11912","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11912","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000At any given time, around half the incarcerated population in the United States works full-time. A large majority of incarcerated workers are engaged in “prison housework,” doing laundry, working in the kitchen, or providing janitorial services, etc. A smaller portion of individuals work in prison industries to produce goods and services for both government agencies and private corporations. National estimates for the annual value of prison and jail industrial output come to around $2 billion. Despite this, the average wage for incarcerated individuals working in state- owned industries is anywhere between $0.33 to $1.41 per hour. \u0000Mass incarceration and the prison industry have become seamlessly intertwined with America’s racially stratified economy. Wal-Mart, Victoria’s Secret, Boeing, Microsoft, and Starbucks are some of the many major U.S. companies that have partnered with prison industries in the past to profit off of free or underpaid labor. In the absence of clear Supreme Court ruling or guidance from Congress, it remains unclear whether incarcerated workers may be considered “employees” as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and therefore subject to the federal minimum wage protections. Without any guidance, lower courts have developed a patchwork of conflicting standards and formalistic dichotomies to address the issue of FLSA coverage for incarcerated workers. \u0000This Note analyzes the circuit split on the question of FLSA coverage and provides recommendations on how the Supreme Court should decide the issue. This Note goes on to advance a new “but-for” test for courts to adopt when deciding which kinds of incarcerated workers should be covered by the FLSA. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124907902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-27DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11759
Nicola Galvan, Maryam Asenuga
This Note analyzes the funding priorities of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and how the law’s egregious funding of prosecutors, enforcement agencies, officers, and courts directly impacts Black female survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV). Although VAWA was passed in 1994 to serve as a federal remedy for women subjected to IPV, over 85% of current VAWA’s funding supports law enforcement, prosecutors, and the overall criminal legal system. This directly harms Black women due to this community’s historically negative relationship with the legal system. Additionally, Black women subjected to abuse are also uniquely impacted by VAWA’s emphasis on punitive measures and enforcement due to their overrepresentation amongst IPV survivors. This Note will advance the argument by investigating three grant programs under VAWA.
{"title":"AREN’T I A WOMAN DESERVING OF JUSTICE? RESTRUCTURING VAWA’S FUNDING STRUCTURE TO CREATE RACIAL AND GENDER EQUITY","authors":"Nicola Galvan, Maryam Asenuga","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11759","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11759","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000This Note analyzes the funding priorities of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and how the law’s egregious funding of prosecutors, enforcement agencies, officers, and courts directly impacts Black female survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV). Although VAWA was passed in 1994 to serve as a federal remedy for women subjected to IPV, over 85% of current VAWA’s funding supports law enforcement, prosecutors, and the overall criminal legal system. This directly harms Black women due to this community’s historically negative relationship with the legal system. Additionally, Black women subjected to abuse are also uniquely impacted by VAWA’s emphasis on punitive measures and enforcement due to their overrepresentation amongst IPV survivors. This Note will advance the argument by investigating three grant programs under VAWA. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129933203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-30DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11665
R. Brooks
With billions of dollars pledged and trillions of dollars demanded to redress slavery and Jim Crow (“Black Reparations”) the question of how best to use these funds has moved into the forefront of the ongoing campaign for racial justice in our post-civil rights society. Reparatory strategies typically target the norms and structures that sustain racial disadvantage wrought by slavery and Jim Crow. The goal of such transitional reparations is to extinguish the menace of white supremacy and systemic racism across the board. Restructuring in housing, education, employment, voting, law enforcement, health care, and the environment—social transformation—is absolutely needed in the United States if the race problem is ever to be resolved. That much is clear beyond peradventure. The hard question, however, is whether Black Reparations can take us there. Are Black Reparations (or reparations in general) powerful enough to engineer social transformation, or what in this case would be “transitional racial justice”? Unfortunately, I do not believe they can. The American race problem is simply too big for reparations to fix. It would take decades of massive amounts of government spending and the sustained moral commitment of the American people to achieve transitional racial justice in this country. The inflationary impact of the requisite spending (estimated at $6.4 trillion to $59.2 trillion) would give opponents of reparations an easy target. Moreover, transitional reparations have rarely been attempted in other countries and when tried it has never succeeded to my knowledge. South Africa attempted to use reparations for social transformation. While there has been a transformation of political power, giving Black South Africans a strong voice in the government, economic power remains in the hands of White South Africans and racial discrimination in housing and education continues. Although at one time I was among scholars who had hoped Black Reparations could deliver a much-needed Third Reconstruction, I would be remiss as a passionate supporter of Black Reparations for many decades to ignore the cold facts—reparations have never successfully reconstructed a society. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. While Black Reparations may not be sufficient for transitional racial justice, they can still play an important role in moving toward that goal. This Article attempts to show one way of doing so. It argues that the initial payment of Black Reparations should take the shape of an education reparation. Education can, as it has in the past with Brown v. Board of Education, provide a foundation for significant racial progress. The type of education reparation broached in this Article gives African American (or Black American) parents or guardians a unique choice for educating their children—Black Boarding Academies (BBAs). Kick started with public reparations, BBAs would begin with PK-3 low-income Black children, giving special attention t
{"title":"Black Boarding Academies as a Prudential Reparation","authors":"R. Brooks","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11665","url":null,"abstract":"With billions of dollars pledged and trillions of dollars demanded to redress slavery and Jim Crow (“Black Reparations”) the question of how best to use these funds has moved into the forefront of the ongoing campaign for racial justice in our post-civil rights society. Reparatory strategies typically target the norms and structures that sustain racial disadvantage wrought by slavery and Jim Crow. The goal of such transitional reparations is to extinguish the menace of white supremacy and systemic racism across the board. Restructuring in housing, education, employment, voting, law enforcement, health care, and the environment—social transformation—is absolutely needed in the United States if the race problem is ever to be resolved. That much is clear beyond peradventure. The hard question, however, is whether Black Reparations can take us there. Are Black Reparations (or reparations in general) powerful enough to engineer social transformation, or what in this case would be “transitional racial justice”? Unfortunately, I do not believe they can. The American race problem is simply too big for reparations to fix. It would take decades of massive amounts of government spending and the sustained moral commitment of the American people to achieve transitional racial justice in this country. The inflationary impact of the requisite spending (estimated at $6.4 trillion to $59.2 trillion) would give opponents of reparations an easy target. Moreover, transitional reparations have rarely been attempted in other countries and when tried it has never succeeded to my knowledge. South Africa attempted to use reparations for social transformation. While there has been a transformation of political power, giving Black South Africans a strong voice in the government, economic power remains in the hands of White South Africans and racial discrimination in housing and education continues. Although at one time I was among scholars who had hoped Black Reparations could deliver a much-needed Third Reconstruction, I would be remiss as a passionate supporter of Black Reparations for many decades to ignore the cold facts—reparations have never successfully reconstructed a society. \u0000But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. While Black Reparations may not be sufficient for transitional racial justice, they can still play an important role in moving toward that goal. This Article attempts to show one way of doing so. It argues that the initial payment of Black Reparations should take the shape of an education reparation. Education can, as it has in the past with Brown v. Board of Education, provide a foundation for significant racial progress. The type of education reparation broached in this Article gives African American (or Black American) parents or guardians a unique choice for educating their children—Black Boarding Academies (BBAs). Kick started with public reparations, BBAs would begin with PK-3 low-income Black children, giving special attention t","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123229822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-30DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11662
Susan D. Carle
In the current moment in the legal struggle for racial equality in the United States, the nation seems at risk of repeating its history. The Roberts Court has failed to fulfill its charge under the Reconstruction amendments to vigorously promote and enforce civil rights protections, and the other branches of government have proved ineffectual or unwilling to step into the breach. The racist far right is rising and the national electorate appears unable to organize in favor of racial justice priorities. In recognition of these partial analogies between conditions then and now, this Article mines the history of Reconstruction and its aftermath for lessons pertinent to the racial justice struggle today. It asks what lessons racial justice activists and legal scholars might glean from that history to help them grow their tally of gains and shrink their tally of losses despite today’s less than ideal legal and political conditions. What the history of Reconstruction teaches is that legal prescription and doctrinal manipulation alone will not bring about greater racial equality; having learned that lesson from Reconstruction’s history, today’s racial justice activists and scholars should direct their efforts towards exploring what new approaches might be effective despite today’s less than optimal legal and political conditions.
{"title":"Reconstruction's Lessons","authors":"Susan D. Carle","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v13i1.11662","url":null,"abstract":"In the current moment in the legal struggle for racial equality in the United States, the nation seems at risk of repeating its history. The Roberts Court has failed to fulfill its charge under the Reconstruction amendments to vigorously promote and enforce civil rights protections, and the other branches of government have proved ineffectual or unwilling to step into the breach. The racist far right is rising and the national electorate appears unable to organize in favor of racial justice priorities. In recognition of these partial analogies between conditions then and now, this Article mines the history of Reconstruction and its aftermath for lessons pertinent to the racial justice struggle today. It asks what lessons racial justice activists and legal scholars might glean from that history to help them grow their tally of gains and shrink their tally of losses despite today’s less than ideal legal and political conditions. What the history of Reconstruction teaches is that legal prescription and doctrinal manipulation alone will not bring about greater racial equality; having learned that lesson from Reconstruction’s history, today’s racial justice activists and scholars should direct their efforts towards exploring what new approaches might be effective despite today’s less than optimal legal and political conditions.","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"253 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115577945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-12DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9944
M. Webb
It is time for policemakers to reimagine and dismantle the child welfare system. This Article provides background on disparities in the child welfare system and argues that policymakers have used the child welfare system to police poverty and regulate Black families. It asserts that poverty presents a significant risk factor for neglect of children, that poverty should be the focus of policymakers, and discusses economic empowerment through Mother's Outreach Network.
{"title":"Building a Guaranteed Income to End the \"Child Welfare\" System","authors":"M. Webb","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9944","url":null,"abstract":"It is time for policemakers to reimagine and dismantle the child welfare system. This Article provides background on disparities in the child welfare system and argues that policymakers have used the child welfare system to police poverty and regulate Black families. It asserts that poverty presents a significant risk factor for neglect of children, that poverty should be the focus of policymakers, and discusses economic empowerment through Mother's Outreach Network.","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114818487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-12DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9946
Carla Laroche
Presently, the state does not enable counsel to effectively protect the parental rights of mothers who are incarcerated. While parents are incarcerated and their children are in the family regulation system, the New Jim Crow and New Jane Crow intersect to separate and destroy families. This Article adds to existing literature demonstrating how the New Jim Crow and New Jane Crow impose too many obstacles for parents' lawyers and shines a new light on the latent defects in the state's provision of access to appointed counsel.
{"title":"The New Jim and Jane Crow Intersect","authors":"Carla Laroche","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9946","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9946","url":null,"abstract":"Presently, the state does not enable counsel to effectively protect the parental rights of mothers who are incarcerated. While parents are incarcerated and their children are in the family regulation system, the New Jim Crow and New Jane Crow intersect to separate and destroy families. This Article adds to existing literature demonstrating how the New Jim Crow and New Jane Crow impose too many obstacles for parents' lawyers and shines a new light on the latent defects in the state's provision of access to appointed counsel. ","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126686166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-12DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9945
Michael S. Wald
The United States is ready for major child welfare reform. Building on more than fifty years of work on reforming the child protection system, this Article proposes that a new approach will better help parents and protect children.
{"title":"Replacing CPS","authors":"Michael S. Wald","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9945","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9945","url":null,"abstract":"The United States is ready for major child welfare reform. Building on more than fifty years of work on reforming the child protection system, this Article proposes that a new approach will better help parents and protect children. ","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128355262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-12DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9947
Ashley Albert, Amy Mulzer
Five years ago, co-author Ashley Albert surrendered her parental rights to her two youngest children to the State of Washington. She shares her story of ostensibly "voluntary" surrender, which was anything but voluntary. This Article goes on to address the practice of permanently severing the legal bonds between a parent and a child, then the State's "replacement" of those bonds with new ones via formalized adoption. It informs readers of the historical background behind modern adoption, argues that adoption must be addressed separately from the family regulation system, and describes the specific harms caused by adoption today.
{"title":"Adoption Cannot Be Reformed","authors":"Ashley Albert, Amy Mulzer","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9947","url":null,"abstract":"Five years ago, co-author Ashley Albert surrendered her parental rights to her two youngest children to the State of Washington. She shares her story of ostensibly \"voluntary\" surrender, which was anything but voluntary. This Article goes on to address the practice of permanently severing the legal bonds between a parent and a child, then the State's \"replacement\" of those bonds with new ones via formalized adoption. It informs readers of the historical background behind modern adoption, argues that adoption must be addressed separately from the family regulation system, and describes the specific harms caused by adoption today. ","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"220 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131544143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9930
K. Weber, Bill Bettencourt
For the last fifteen years, the Center for the Study of Social Policy (“CSSP”) partnered with local agencies to use an Institutional Analysis (“IA”), a method that identifies how local child welfare institutions are not working for families. We have particularly focused on the experiences of Black families. Through a comprehensive and varied qualitative data analyses, each IA strives to make the invisible and detrimental workings of systems more visible, that is, each IA reveals specific institutional features that contribute to poor outcomes for Black families. Findings from IAs have identified problematic policies, practices, protocols, resource distribution, and other features at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. From the twenty IAs conducted to date, we have substantial evidence of the insidious, pervasive, and mutating structural and institutional racism ingrained in child welfare systems. While the IAs have unique findings in each jurisdiction, there are also common findings, including: lack of meaningful and reasonable efforts to keep families together; policies that undermine existing networks of Black families; lack of due process and poor advocacy for Black families; inaccessible, inappropriate, and ineffective resources offered to families; coercive and punitive interventions; hyper surveillance of Black families; workforce fear of Black families, particularly Black fathers; and ineffective mechanisms of accountability that result in blaming families for the failures of workers, providers, and larger societal ills (lack of housing, lack of livable wages, etc.). This Piece presents evidence compiled over the years which leads us to conclude that reforms within the current system will only go so far and that radical investment in community supports and anti-poverty efforts are necessary.
{"title":"Different Year, Different Jurisdiction, but the Same Findings","authors":"K. Weber, Bill Bettencourt","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9930","url":null,"abstract":"For the last fifteen years, the Center for the Study of Social Policy (“CSSP”) partnered with local agencies to use an Institutional Analysis (“IA”), a method that identifies how local child welfare institutions are not working for families. We have particularly focused on the experiences of Black families. \u0000Through a comprehensive and varied qualitative data analyses, each IA strives to make the invisible and detrimental workings of systems more visible, that is, each IA reveals specific institutional features that contribute to poor outcomes for Black families. Findings from IAs have identified problematic policies, practices, protocols, resource distribution, and other features at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. From the twenty IAs conducted to date, we have substantial evidence of the insidious, pervasive, and mutating structural and institutional racism ingrained in child welfare systems. While the IAs have unique findings in each jurisdiction, there are also common findings, including: lack of meaningful and reasonable efforts to keep families together; policies that undermine existing networks of Black families; lack of due process and poor advocacy for Black families; inaccessible, inappropriate, and ineffective resources offered to families; coercive and punitive interventions; hyper surveillance of Black families; workforce fear of Black families, particularly Black fathers; and ineffective mechanisms of accountability that result in blaming families for the failures of workers, providers, and larger societal ills (lack of housing, lack of livable wages, etc.). \u0000This Piece presents evidence compiled over the years which leads us to conclude that reforms within the current system will only go so far and that radical investment in community supports and anti-poverty efforts are necessary.","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130233733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9929
Marcía Hopkins, Kara R. Finck, Alexis Andino, British Christopher, Duane Price, A. Simpson, Ishale Watson
A group of youth advocates were tasked with discussing their experiences in the child welfare system as children and their perspectives on reforming the system. Informed by their experiences in foster care and work with the Juvenile Law Center, the youth advocates addressed issues of racism, reform, abolition, and child well-being. They concluded that meaningful reform of the child welfare system mandates a radical realignment of power to provide full participation, collaboration, and shared decision-making authority to families impacted by the child welfare system.
{"title":"Youth and Families Matter","authors":"Marcía Hopkins, Kara R. Finck, Alexis Andino, British Christopher, Duane Price, A. Simpson, Ishale Watson","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9929","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v12i1.9929","url":null,"abstract":"A group of youth advocates were tasked with discussing their experiences in the child welfare system as children and their perspectives on reforming the system. Informed by their experiences in foster care and work with the Juvenile Law Center, the youth advocates addressed issues of racism, reform, abolition, and child well-being. They concluded that meaningful reform of the child welfare system mandates a radical realignment of power to provide full participation, collaboration, and shared decision-making authority to families impacted by the child welfare system.","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114251792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：