IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v19y2022i4p1003-1066.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the effects of antidiscrimination laws on children in the foster care and adoption systems

Author

Listed:
  • Netta Barak‐Corren
  • Yoav Kan‐Tor
  • Nelson Tebbe

Abstract

How are children affected when states prohibit child welfare agencies from discriminating against same‐sex couples who wish to foster or adopt? This question stands at the heart of a debate between governments that seek to impose such antidiscrimination requirements and child welfare agencies that challenge them on religious freedom grounds. Yet until now there has been no reliable evidence on whether and how antidiscrimination rules for these agencies impact children. We have conducted the first nationwide study of how child outcomes vary when states adopt such antidiscrimination rules for child welfare agencies. Analyzing 20 years of child welfare data (2000–2019), we estimate that state antidiscrimination rules both (1) modestly increase children's success at finding foster and permanent homes, and (2) greatly reduce the average time to place children in such homes. These effects vary among subgroups, such that children who are most likely to find a home are generally not affected by state antidiscrimination requirements, whereas children who are least likely to find a home (primarily older children and children with various disabilities) benefit substantially from antidiscrimination measures. We estimate that the effect of antidiscrimination rules is equivalent to 15,525 additional children finding permanent homes and 360,000 additional children finding foster homes, nationwide, over a period of 20 years. Overall, the project offers two key contributions: First, it provides empirical grounding for some of the most heated constitutional and political battles of the culture wars. Second, it advances empirical legal studies by bringing machine learning causal inference to law.

Suggested Citation

  • Netta Barak‐Corren & Yoav Kan‐Tor & Nelson Tebbe, 2022. "Examining the effects of antidiscrimination laws on children in the foster care and adoption systems," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 1003-1066, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:1003-1066
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12333
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12333
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12333?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey Grogger & Sean Gupta & Ria Ivandic & Tom Kirchmaier, 2021. "Comparing Conventional and Machine‐Learning Approaches to Risk Assessment in Domestic Abuse Cases," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 90-130, March.
    2. Card, David & Krueger, Alan B, 1994. "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 772-793, September.
    3. David Card, 1990. "The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 43(2), pages 245-257, January.
    4. Steven Glazerman & Dan M. Levy & David Myers, 2003. "Nonexperimental Versus Experimental Estimates of Earnings Impacts," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 63-93, September.
    5. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    6. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2019. "Machine Learning Methods That Economists Should Know About," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 685-725, August.
    7. Richard A. Berk & Susan B. Sorenson & Geoffrey Barnes, 2016. "Forecasting Domestic Violence: A Machine Learning Approach to Help Inform Arraignment Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 94-115, March.
    8. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen, 2014. "Inference on Treatment Effects after Selection among High-Dimensional Controlsâ€," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(2), pages 608-650.
    9. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Papers 2101.00878, arXiv.org.
    10. Sun, Liyang & Abraham, Sarah, 2021. "Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 175-199.
    11. repec:mpr:mprres:3694 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    13. Sendhil Mullainathan & Jann Spiess, 2017. "Machine Learning: An Applied Econometric Approach," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 87-106, Spring.
    14. Lightfoot, Elizabeth & DeZelar, Sharyn, 2016. "The experiences and outcomes of children in foster care who were removed because of a parental disability," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 22-28.
    15. Snowden, Jessica & Leon, Scott & Sieracki, Jeffrey, 2008. "Predictors of children in foster care being adopted: A classification tree analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(11), pages 1318-1327, November.
    16. Baker, Andrew C. & Larcker, David F. & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2022. "How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 370-395.
    17. Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W., 2019. "Machine Learning Methods Economists Should Know About," Research Papers 3776, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    18. Abadie, Alberto & Diamond, Alexis & Hainmueller, Jens, 2010. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 493-505.
    19. Kaufman, Aaron Russell & Kraft, Peter & Sen, Maya, 2019. "Improving Supreme Court Forecasting Using Boosted Decision Trees," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 381-387, July.
    20. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-001/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raval, Devesh & Rosenbaum, Ted & Wilson, Nathan E., 2021. "How do machine learning algorithms perform in predicting hospital choices? evidence from changing environments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Gabriel Okasa, 2022. "Meta-Learners for Estimation of Causal Effects: Finite Sample Cross-Fit Performance," Papers 2201.12692, arXiv.org.
    3. Michael C Knaus, 2022. "Double machine learning-based programme evaluation under unconfoundedness [Econometric methods for program evaluation]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(3), pages 602-627.
    4. Huber, Martin, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," FSES Working Papers 504, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    5. Harsh Parikh & Carlos Varjao & Louise Xu & Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, 2022. "Validating Causal Inference Methods," Papers 2202.04208, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    6. Akash Malhotra, 2021. "A hybrid econometric–machine learning approach for relative importance analysis: prioritizing food policy," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(3), pages 549-581, September.
    7. Michael Pollmann, 2020. "Causal Inference for Spatial Treatments," Papers 2011.00373, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    8. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP72/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    9. Combes, Pierre-Philippe & Gobillon, Laurent & Zylberberg, Yanos, 2022. "Urban economics in a historical perspective: Recovering data with machine learning," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    10. Tsang, Andrew, 2021. "Uncovering Heterogeneous Regional Impacts of Chinese Monetary Policy," MPRA Paper 110703, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP54/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    12. Carlos Fern'andez-Lor'ia & Foster Provost & Jesse Anderton & Benjamin Carterette & Praveen Chandar, 2020. "A Comparison of Methods for Treatment Assignment with an Application to Playlist Generation," Papers 2004.11532, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    13. Michael Lechner, 2023. "Causal Machine Learning and its use for public policy," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 159(1), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Mark Kattenberg & Bas Scheer & Jurre Thiel, 2023. "Causal forests with fixed effects for treatment effect heterogeneity in difference-in-differences," CPB Discussion Paper 452, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Denis Fougère & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2020. "Policy Evaluation Using Causal Inference Methods," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03455978, HAL.
    16. Peter Hull & Michal Kolesár & Christopher Walters, 2022. "Labor by design: contributions of David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(3), pages 603-645, July.
    17. Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W., 2022. "Design-based analysis in Difference-In-Differences settings with staggered adoption," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 62-79.
    18. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2020. "Double Debiased Machine Learning Nonparametric Inference with Continuous Treatments," Papers 2004.03036, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    19. Aysegül Kayaoglu & Ghassan Baliki & Tilman Brück & Melodie Al Daccache & Dorothee Weiffen, 2023. "How to conduct impact evaluations in humanitarian and conflict settings," HiCN Working Papers 387, Households in Conflict Network.
    20. Bas Bosma & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2024. "Machine learning in international business," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 55(6), pages 676-702, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:1003-1066. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.