The Effect of Couple Disagreement about Child‐Timing Intentions: A Parity‐Specific Approach

Using couple data from a longitudinal study conducted in Italy, a country with persistently low fertility levels, we examined the effect of partners' discrepant child‐timing intentions on reproductive behavior. We found that the effect of couple disagreement on subsequent fertility is parity‐specific and does not depend on whether only the male or the female partner intends to have a(nother) child. The disagreement tends to produce an intermediate childbearing outcome at parities zero and one, while the outcome is shifted more toward agreement on not having a(nother) child at parity two. The empirical evidence suggests that gender equality in reproductive decisionmaking is not driven by partners' equal bargaining power or partners' equal access to economic resources. The findings indicate that the predictive power of child‐timing intentions strongly improves if both partners' views are considered in fertility models, and thus support the adoption of couple analysis in fertility research.     

Foster youth emancipating from care: caseworkers' reports on needs and services

This article presents findings from a survey mailed to caseworkers, who answered questions about special needs, independent living skills, educational attainment, and services for 416 randomly selected foster youth in Illinois. A third of the adolescents had a mental health disorder, developmental disability, or other special need that their caseworkers believed would interfere with their ability to live independently. Additionally, urban youth were underserved relative to other youth. Youth with more behavior problems and educational and job skill deficits were less likely than other youth to continue to receive child welfare services past age 18, suggesting that services must be provided throughout adolescence to meet the needs of the most vulnerable clients.     

Leveraging risk assessment for foodborne outbreak investigations: The Quantitative Risk Assessment-Epidemic Curve Prediction Model

Root cause analysis can be used in foodborne illness outbreak investigations to determine the underlying causes of an outbreak and to help identify actions that could be taken to prevent future outbreaks. We developed a new tool, the Quantitative Risk Assessment-Epidemic Curve Prediction Model (QRA-EC), to assist with these goals and applied it to a case study to investigate and illustrate the utility of leveraging quantitative risk assessment to provide unique insights for foodborne illness outbreak root cause analysis. We used a 2019 Salmonella outbreak linked to melons as a case study to demonstrate the utility of this model (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). The model was used to evaluate the impact of various root cause hypotheses (representing different contamination sources and food safety system failures in the melon supply chain) on the predicted number and timeline of illnesses. The predicted number of illnesses varied by contamination source and was strongly impacted by the prevalence and level of Salmonella contamination on the surface/inside of whole melons and inside contamination niches on equipment surfaces. The timeline of illnesses was most strongly impacted by equipment sanitation efficacy for contamination niches. Evaluations of a wide range of scenarios representing various potential root causes enabled us to identify which hypotheses, were likely to result in an outbreak of similar size and illness timeline to the 2019 Salmonella melon outbreak. The QRA-EC framework can be adapted to accommodate any food–pathogen pairs to provide insights for foodborne outbreak investigations.     

Adolescents' Retributive and Restorative Orientations in Response to Intergroup Harms in Schools

This mixed-methods study examined how adolescents understand and evaluate different ways to address intergroup harms in schools. In individual interviews, 77 adolescents (M age = 16.49 years; 39 girls, 38 boys) in Bogotá, Colombia, responded to hypothetical vignettes wherein a rival group at school engaged in a transgression against their group. Adolescents reported that students who were harmed should and would talk to school authorities, but also noted they would likely retaliate. In terms of teacher-sanctioned responses to harm, youth endorsed compensation most strongly, followed by apologies, and rated suspension least positively. Youths' explanations for their endorsement of different disciplinary practices reflected varied concerns, including their perceptions of how justice is best achieved and how restoration could be attained.     

Children's and adolescents’ conversations with mothers about offenders’ and victims’ responsibility for harm in their experiences of being hurt by a peer

This study investigated mothers’ and children's constructions of meaning about responsibility for harm in conversations about two experiences when children were hurt by a peer and felt they had either contributed or not contributed to the situation. The sample included 105 Canadian mothers (75% White) and their children (53 girls, 52 boys) across three age groups (M ages = 6.92, 11.14, 15.89 years). Overall, mothers and children emphasized different aspects of responsibility; mothers made more evaluations of acts and discussed the avoidability of harm whereas children referred more to hurtful acts, consequences, reasons, and subsequent responses. Discussions of the child's and peer's responsibility were responsive to the child's perspective on events. The child's responsibility for self-protection was particularly emphasized by mothers and when the child felt they had not contributed to the situation. Children more often mitigated their responsibility as compared to their mothers, and older children referred more to their own and their peer's responsibility for harm. Findings illuminate how conversations with mothers may inform children's judgments of their own and others’ roles in peer conflict.     

“I'm going to do battle… I'm going to do some good”. Biographical trajectories,moral politics,and public engagement among highly religious young Catholics in Spain and Mexico

Public debates and controversies on moral issues have gained visibility in recent decades in both Spain and Mexico. Conservative Catholic groups and networks are increasingly playing a crucial role in raising and framing highly morally charged themes in the public arena, especially on intimacy-related policies, including sexual and reproductive freedoms. A new generation of young Catholic leaders becoming key political agents has emerged in this scenario. They are fostering new mobilisation repertoires in the public sphere (e.g., digital activism and public performances) and promoting new political narratives merging moral, cultural, and religious elements. These highly religious and conservative young Catholics consider themselves part of a cultural/cognitive minority and feel entitled to become what Howard Becker termed “moral entrepreneurs.” Most have been educated in Catholic schools and belong to Catholic movements. Still, they can also navigate secular politics and strategically use different regimes of justification and action. Within this context, the article aims to examine and compare the intersection of historical trends and the relevance of individual biographies to understand the role of these young Catholics in the public space in both countries.