Raven King_Early Intervention Programs For At-Risk Adolescents

Raven King

ENG 110_Spring 2015

Research Paper

May 18, 2015

Early Intervention Programs For At-Risk Adolescents

Juvenile delinquency is a severe issue in today’s society and needs serious attention in order to make it better. Even those who are not directly affected end up being touched by this issue through governmental allocation of tax dollars and the general safety of our communities (Saminsky, 2010). Juvenile crime affects everyone living in the United States today. It impacts parents, neighbors, teachers and families, victims of the crime, and the perpetrators. While delinquency rates have been decreasing, the numbers are still too high. However, this problem cannot simply be solved by spending money but by doing research about the effective ways to lower these numbers. There have been numerous programs that attempted to lower this rate. Some have been successful and others have had minimal or no impact; and these failing programs are a waste of valuable resources. It is important to take a look at these programs and find out what works and what doesn’t so the successful programs can continue to be implemented and improved, while those programs that are failing can be put to rest.

Prevention programs positively impact the general public because they strive to reduce crime or stop it altogether. One component of successful prevention programs is the comprehensive nature. These programs take a more holistic approach to prevent future crime by dealing with various aspects of a child’s life, rather than focusing on one in particular.  For example, rather than focusing on the academics and intellectual level of the child alone, it is more effective to include factors such as recreational activities and peer counseling. Two of the most successful programs are Head Start and Home Visitation Programs. They both target at-risk populations and specific risk factors that contribute to delinquent behavior and juvenile delinquency. Once these risk factors are decreased to a certain degree, the problem behavior is less likely to occur. Some of the most effective early intervention programs have taken a multi-prolonged approach to this goal by including non-educational supports, such as providing health care, involving parents in the program, and offering specific services to the families of children enrolled (Zigler, 1992).

Risk factors play a major role in the lives of at-risk youth and may lead to delinquent behavior. Low intelligence is considered to be a risk factor because children with below average intelligence there is a greater chance of the child performing poorly in school. Socioeconomic status is another important risk factor to evaluate in cases of delinquent behavior. Children raised in a household that is unstable with unsupportive caregivers have a much greater chance of developing a problem behavior in the future than children who are raised in a stable home.  Although it is difficult to predict future problem behavior, targeting specific risk factors will possibly decrease the amount of the delinquent behavior. As the number of risk factors increase, the possibility of delinquency being present increases as well. The majority of these risk factors appear to be rooted in the environment, but there is some speculation that nurture interacts with nature to heighten a child’s vulnerability (Zigler, 1992).

In the 1960s and 1970s, it was found that the juvenile justice system was ineffective. The nation began working to stop the institutionalization of a number of populations, which included psychiatric patients and mentally retarded persons. Therefore to continue with this change the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 was developed. This act aimed to decrease the number of juveniles being placed in jail for crimes that are not necessarily considered to be crimes for adults: running away, truancy, and liquor law violations. The number of status offenders held in public facilities decreased by 60% between 1977 and 1982, and the population of juveniles held in adult facilities decreased from 97,847 to 15,130 (Zigler, 1992).

Those that get involved with the delinquent after the occurrence of deviant behavior tend to be less successful—at that point antisocial habits are well developed. The programs that intervene before the onset of the delinquent behavior and prevent that behavior are more effective. Getting involving in the children’s lives earlier rather than later can effectively reduce crime. The period of early childhood and adolescence is a critical time where the child is the most influenced by outside forces. Whether the influence comes from their social group or family, it is important to provide them with the right information before the problem behavior can even develop.

Head Start is an intervention program that stands out among the others. This program began as a part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. The program provides comprehensive education, health services, nutritional guidance, parental involvement, and social services to low-income children and their families (Saminsky, 2010). It takes a holistic approach in order to address all aspects of a child’s life After almost 50 years of being in session, Head Start has enrolled over 22 million children in the United States. The ultimate goal of this program is to prepare children for school and give these unprivileged children a “head start”. Head Start has been shown to improve intelligence, academic readiness and achievement, self-esteem, social behavior and physical health (Saminsky, 2010).

It is important to understand that Head Start does not estimate the success of their programs based on the rate of juvenile delinquency, but the level of school readiness the child exhibits. Children who participate in these programs are less likely to drop out and perform delinquent behavior because they have better early school experiences and a stronger commitment to education. Early intervention programs have also been shown to increase IQ scores and executive functioning, better elementary school achievement, and lower rates of aggression and other antisocial behavior.

Today, Head Start is considered to be an educational achievement program as well as an early intervention delinquency program. Programs like Head Start are not only beneficial for the students but for the government as well. There is evidence that suggests that these programs not only pay back their costs but also earn a profit for the government and taxpayers in terms of deflecting costs of social assistance and judicial costs, and adding to tax revenue (Saminsky, 2010).

Another successful program is home visitation, which also combines early intervention and comprehensive care. This program allows nurses and trained professionals to meet with typically low-income or high-risk mothers, typically teenage mothers. These professionals provide assistance to these mothers throughout the duration of their pregnancy until the child is 2 years old. The goal of this program is to provide mothers with information and support. Specifically, the nurses aim to reduce environmental hazards, instruct mothers about nutrition for themselves and for their infants, effectively correct behavior, and reduce substance abuse by the mother (Saminsky, 2010).

The effects of the visitation programs include a reduction in maternal substance abuse during pregnancy, a reduction in child maltreatment, a reduction in family size, closely spaced pregnancies, and chronic welfare dependence (Saminsky, 2010). Home visitation programs have been increasingly successful in mediating risk factors. This program not only helps create healthy childhood development, but it sets children up for success in the future and reduces the chance of crimes being committed as well. 

Although it is important to look at the factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency, the success of the communities’ children depends on the strength of the families. The first important influence on children is the family but that children and families are interactive members of a large system of social institutions, such as the school, the workplace, and community health and child care services (Zigler, 1992). Children will be positively impacted in homes that provide a secure, predictable and stable environment where parents are supportive and loving towards them. Parents that are active and present in their child’s life will foster a positive environment where delinquent behavior is less likely.

Families can show more involvement when they receive much needed support. Whether they are given opportunities for parenting classes or resources to help them become more involved in their children’s lives, improvement will benefit both the child and parent.  In low-income societies it is less likely for the parents to be involved, and on the other hand become more irritable and less affectionate towards their children. Socioeconomic status is a major factor that contributes to the lack of involvement of parents and has negative effects on the children as well. Low-income families are less likely to have good health, mental health care, housing, quality childcare, or even adequate food (Lieny, 2014). Evidence has shown that the best times to support families are in the first few years of the child’s life, during the transition to elementary school, and in the transition to middle school (Lieny, 2014). It is important that resources are available to all parents and families.

While these programs have been shown to be successful, there are changes that need to be implemented. With some exceptions, programs aimed at preventing juvenile delinquency have also shown little evidence of their long-term effectiveness, largely because they target only a few of the causes of delinquent behavior (Zigler, 1992). Research has shown that highly successful programs continue beyond childhood years to provide support to at-risk youth. The best programs do not end once the child reaches a certain age, but continues to provide support throughout childhood. Early intervention for at-risk adolescents is beneficial in all aspects. These programs prepare children for the future at the most crucial time in their lives. Whether the success is seen in individual children or not, it is successful overall. Although, early intervention aims to prevent future problem behavior there is still room for improvement in order to see lasting effects in future generations.

Annotated Bibliography

Saminsky, A. (2010). “Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: Early Intervention and Comprehensiveness as Critical Factors.” Student Pulse, 2(02).

The author describes the risk factors that contribute to delinquent behavior in children. By examining factors that may cause a child to become delinquent, there is room for improvement. The programs that are deemed to be successful and those who have little to no impact are all included and evaluated. Factors such as comprehensiveness and early intervention are significant when it comes to preventing delinquent behavior.

Jeon, Lieny, Cynthia K. Buettner, and Eunhye Hur. “Family And Neighborhood Disadvantage, Home Environment, And Children’s School Readiness.” Journal Of Family Psychology 28.5 (2014): 718-727. PsycARTICLES.

Preschool-aged children’s cognitive skills and social-emotional competence have critical implications for success in the transition to formal schooling. Children who exhibit more school readiness attain greater academic achievement and are able to adapt to their surroundings, which develops more positive behaviors. The authors of this article examine two important elements of children’ school readiness: cognitive skills and social-emotional competence. Social competence represents children’s behaviors that allow them to effectively manage and engage in social environments. Emotional competence can be defined as children’s ability to regulate their emotions.

Zigler, E.. Taussig, C., Black, K. (1992). “Early Childhood Intervention: A Promising Preventative for Juvenile Delinquency.” Yale University

The authors of this article focused on early intervention programs that target juvenile delinquency. They examined the success of multiple programs and discovered factors that made them wither successful or not. This study shows that although these programs have been around for decades, the success rate is somewhat the same. Therefore, there needs to be improvements made to these early intervention programs for the future.

Karoly, Lynn A., M. Rebecca Kilburn and Jill S. Cannon. Proven Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2005.

The authors of this articles examined the short and long-term benefits of early intervention programs, the features that are associated with more effective programs and the economic gains that come from investing in these programs. The study focused on programs that provide child development services from the prenatal period until kindergarten.

May, Jessica., Osmond, Kristina., Billick, Stephen (2014). “Juvenile Delinquency Treatment and Prevention: A Literature Review.” Springer Science + Business Media New York

The authors of this article examined how teaching prosocial values in early childhood can reduce the incidence of first-time juvenile delinquency. There has been plenty of research to demonstrate that institute Multisystematic Therapy for serious juvenile offenders, keeping them in the community with intensive intervention, can significantly reduce recidivism. Programs such as the Perry School Project is discussed to demonstrate that although these interventions are expensive, they are cost-effective as the cost to society of decision, incarceration and victim damages are much greater.

Orlando Sanchez Research Paper

Orlando Sanchez

English 11000-B

5/18/15

Fracking: The Economy vs. The Environment

            Today in America, we are more dependent on oil and its byproducts than ever before. It is estimated that an average of 19.05 million barrels of oil are used per day in the United States (Howarth et al). To meet this demand, oil is imported from foreign countries or drilled from American territories. One method that has seen an increase of use is Hydraulic Fracturing, better known as “Fracking”. Fracking has seen widespread use around the world for some years now but has only recently begun being used in the U.S on a large scale. This method of extracting oil allows for America to supply its own oil instead of relying on foreign imports, but it comes at a price. There has been scientific evidence that fracking is destructive towards the environment and humans exposed to the process. The topic of fracking has two sides, those who support it due to its good for the economy and those who are against it because of its harm to the environment.

            The technique of Hydraulic Fracturing has been in development since the 1860’s with the modern version we see today being introduced in 1947 by Stanolind Oil and being successfully performed in 1949 by Halliburton (Richardson). Fracking is done by first drilling vertically into the earth, then drilling horizontally into the rock layer. Then a mixture containing water, sand and various chemicals is injected at high pressures to allow the oil to flow out of the well. The horizontal drilling and injection of fluid allow greater amounts of natural gases to flow out of the fissures made. Fracking has allowed the U.S oil industry to turn to unconventional sources of gas, such as shale.

            Shale is a naturally occurring rock formation and shale gas is a natural gas that is found trapped within. Up until recent years, shale was an uncommon source of gas, only accounting for 1% of U.S gas production in 2001 (EIA). However, due to the introduction of hydraulic fracturing, shale gas accounted for 20% of gas production in 2010 and the EOA (Energy Information Administration) predicts that by 2035, shale gas will account for 46% of gas production in the U.S (EIA). Due to this newfound supply of shale gas, oil companies have shifted their operations to drill onshore in these shale formations. One of these formations is the Marcellus Formation which stretches across eastern states such as New York and Pennsylvania.

            The drilling of the Marcellus shale formation has revitalized and introduced new jobs to the states in which it is located. Pennsylvania is where the first oil well in the U.S was drilled in 1859 which prompted the first oil boom (Cruz et al). The state then went on to dominate oil production in the 19^th century until Texas took over at the start of the 20^th century (Cruz et al). Factors such as the introduction of fracking and the usefulness of shale as a gas source have given Pennsylvania a new place in the American oil industry. As a result, Pennsylvania went from being the 10th-largest state by oil and natural gas employment in 2007 to being the 6th largest in 2012 (Cruz et al).  From 2007-2012 employment in Pennsylvania’s oil and natural gas increased by 15,114 (259.3 percent) while wages in the industry rose by $22,104 (36.3 percent) to $82,974 (Cruz et al). Pennsylvania is just one example of the economic benefits fracking has.

Due to hydraulic fracturing, the oil industry supported 2.1 million jobs in 2012 and is predicted to support 3.9 million by the year 2025 (EIA). In addition an IHS study found that ‘the shale gas contribution to GDP was $76.9 billion in 2010, will increase to $118 billion by 2015, and will nearly triple to $231 billion in 2035,’ all in 2010 dollars’ (Efstathiou).The natural gas  extracted from fracking has also seen an increase in its use as an alternative energy source. For example, factories can now burn this natural gas instead of coal for energy. Because the U.S now has a large supply of gas, this in turn caused energy prices to drop. Between 2007-2013, consumer gas bills dropped by $13 billion per year as a result of fracking (Hausman et al).  In addition to more affordable energy and a boom in the energy industry, a large supply of natural gas gives the U.S less incentive to import.

The declining need to import oil from other parts of the world is a great thing for the United States. Having its own large supply of natural gas will allow the U.S to stop relying on Middle Eastern countries and Venezuela for its supply. Not only does signify economic independence from these countries, but also political independence, as these countries do not always agree with the actions taken by the U.S. According to a prediction based on current trends by the EIA (U.S Energy Information Administration), the United States will become a net exporter of oil by the year 2020 (EIA). In the event that this does occur, the U.S economy will grow even further. The ability to export oil will allow the U.S to sell oil to its allies, one prime example being the European Union. The E.U has long been dependent on countries such as Russia and Iran for its oil. This fact plays a large part in global politics, as Europe is usually hesitant to join countries such as the U.S to place trade sanctions on Russia or Iran as consequences for certain actions they have taken. The ability to get its oil from the United States will also give the E.U political and economic independence from these countries. With this and the many supporting facts that fracking is beneficial to the American economy, it is clear why people support it.

On the opposite side of the debate on fracking, there are those who don’t agree that the facts previously listed are worth the risk. Those who oppose fracking do so on the grounds that the damage it does to the environment is not worth the economic gains. There are numerous environmental organizations that feel that fracking needs to be stopped immediately before irreversible damage is done. In addition some politicians feel that fracking needs to be under heavy regulation, as seen by the proposed “FRAC ACT” legislation (Rosenberg et al). This proposed legislation would allow states to regulate hydraulic fracturing and would close the loopholes which allow the oil companies to operate as they please. For example, the injection of wastewater from fracking into the ground is exempt from following the Safe Drinking Water Act (1975), which regulates the addition of waste to water supplies. As of right now fracking is very loosely regulated and the oil companies can almost do as they please, such as not disclosing the chemicals which they pump into the fracking sites.

As stated before, in the process of hydraulic fracturing a mixture called “fracking fluid” is pumped into the well to amplify and expedite the extraction of natural gases. This mixture is composed of water, sand and various chemicals which include toxins and carcinogens such as methanol, lead, mercury and uranium (Howarth et al). However, companies are not required to disclose what is used in their mixtures and this in turn makes it difficult for the local resident and emergency personnel to deal with any threats that may arise as a result (Howarth et al). One of the main concerns with fracking is the possible contamination of the environment with these dangerous chemicals.

During hydraulic fracturing, measures are taken place to avoid the contamination of the environment. Such measures include, firstly lowering a steel casing then pouring concrete down the well which is being “fracked” to hold the steel casing in place (Valentine). This casing is meant to prevent any chemicals from the fracking fluid from seeping out into the ground, and when done correctly, it is effective in doing so. However, this is not always the case as there are some fracking sites where the workers are careless and do a poor job when securing the casing. Another measure taken is to drill below the water table to prevent the contamination of the water. Even so, there have been over 1,000 reported cases of water contamination in areas where fracking and gas extraction have taken place (Keene et al).

In the event where the correct precautions have not been taken, the chemicals will seep out and into the ground and water. The concentration of methane in water supplies used for drinking which are located near fracking sites have been reported to be 17 times higher than normal(Rosenberg et al). A recent study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which looked at contaminated drinking water in Texas and Pennsylvania (Valentine). This study confirmed that the contamination had taken place due to failures in the cementing and casing process. However some researchers such as Robert Poreda from the University of Rochester believed that “Many of the leaks probably occur when natural gas travels up the outside of the borehole, potentially even thousands of feet, and is released directly into drinking-water aquifers”(Valentine).Whether the actual hydraulic fracturing causes contamination or not is another controversial topic in this debate. In August 2014, Pennsylvania alone made 243 cases of contamination linked to oil and gas operations public (Valentine). In addition in September 2014, researchers at the University of Texas found that levels of “arsenic, selenium and strontium were higher than the EPA’s limits in some private wells located within about 1.8 miles of natural gas wells” (Valentine). Besides the risk of contamination due to chemicals, fracking also produces toxic wastewater which poses a threat to the environment.

After a fracking job has taken place, the toxic wastewater that is left over is often left to evaporate in pits near the fracking site. The theory behind this is that the water will evaporate and take care of the waste in a sanitary and safe manner. However the toxins found in the wastewater have been linked to air pollution (Howarth et al). There have been reports from those who live in areas in which fracking takes place who claim health issues caused by fracking, specifically in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air has compiled a list of those affected by fracking, dubbed the “List of the Harmed” (Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air). These reports include inflammation of the cornea and blisters appearing in the mouth, and also include harm done to animals which usually consists of dead cows or goats and stillborn livestock.

Another area of concern when it comes to fracking is the use of fresh water for the operation. For each fracking job, approximately 1-8 million gallons of water are used, and this water is usually acquired from a fresh water source near the area (Howarth et al). The use of such large amounts of freshwater poses a threat to not only humans who rely on those sources for drinking water, but also to the ecological health to those areas. Recently parts of the United States have been experiencing droughts and in a situation like this, abusing the freshwater sources only makes it worse. In addition to the large amounts of water, hydraulic fracturing requires also supplies such as concrete and heavy machinery. Fracking sites are usually located in more rural areas and the transport of supplies to these areas causes drastic changes. These rural areas are often transformed into industrial highways to ease the flow of materials.

Additional issues linked to hydraulic fracturing include the displacement of families who occupy these rural areas in which the drilling takes place. Reasons for these displacements usually include the need to move due to health reasons or extortion by the oil companies to sell the land. Another interesting argument against hydraulic fracturing is the theory that it can cause “seismic events”, or earthquakes. The USGS (U.S Geological Survey) has confirmed that oil and gas drilling is responsible for earthquakes in at least eight states (TheGuardian.com). According to the research, these man made earthquakes are caused when fracking is done near pre-existing faults. It has also been linked to the injection of wastewater into deep underground wells which are located near faults as well (TheGuardian.com). These earthquakes are not always minor either, as a 5.7 magnitude quake was experienced in Oklahoma in 2011 (TheGuardian.com). The rising frequency and magnitude of these quakes can potentially cause damage to surrounding homes and other structures near the fracking sites.

When it comes to the environmental benefits of fracking, the negatives far outweigh the positives. The only positive environmental aspect of fracking is that the burning of natural gases instead of coal has caused a large drop in carbon emissions (Keene et al). However on the other hand, fracking is seen as too valuable because of its good for the American economy. This is seen by the rise of employment is the gas and energy industries, the large contribution of these industries to the GDP, and the now large domestic supply of oil and natural gas which we now have access to. The controversy surrounding hydraulic fracturing is one of profit vs. the environment; each side has indisputable facts and arguments but it is up to the American public to decide. Yale University conducted a study on the varying views and opinions of Americans on fracking. For those who had a preexisting opinion on fracking, the survey reported that 59% thought it was bad against 42% who supported it (Clarke et al). From this survey it is clear to see that the public opinion is split almost 50/50.

America today is more dependent on oil and natural resources than ever before; these are required to power our homes, vehicles and our large cities. Our way of life relies heavily on oil and how much of it we have and fracking is the answer to this. However, the Earth’s supply of fossil fuels is constantly being depleted and will eventually run out. Fracking is a short term answer but has the potential to cause long term environmental problems if it is not placed under heavy regulation. The environment is crucial to our survival, but greed is also an innate human nature. This split attitude of wanting to earn a profit and wanting to protect the environment sets the stage for the debate on the value of fracking.

Works Cited

Clarke,"C.E.,"Boudet,"H.S.,"&"Bugden,"D."(2013)"Fracking in the American Mind: Americans’

Views on Hydraulic Fracturing in September, 2012. Yale"University"and"George"

Mason"University."New"Haven,"CT:"Yale"Project"on"Climate"Change"Communication."

http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/reports

Cruz, Jennifer, Peter W. Smith, and Sara Stanley. "The Marcellus Shale Gas Boom In Pennsylvania:

Employment And Wage Trends." Monthly Labor Review (2014): 1-12. Business Source

Complete. Web. 6 May 2015.

Efstathiou, Jim, Jr. "Fracking Will Support 1.7 Million Jobs, Study Shows."Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg,

23 Oct. 2012. Web. 9 May 2015.

Hausman, Kelly, and Ryan Kellog. "Welfare and Distributional Implications of Shale Gas."

 The Brookings Institution. Brookings, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Howarth, Robert W., Anthony Ingraffea, and Terry Engelder. "Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop?."

 Nature 477.7364 (2011): 271-275. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2015.

Keene, Doug, and Rita Handrich. "Hydrofracking & The Environment: Juror Attitudes, Beliefs, And

Priorities." Jury Expert 24.5 (2012): 22-30. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2015.

Richardson, John. "The History of Fracking (A Timeline)."Http://energywithjr.quora.com/. Quora, 23

Feb. 2013. Web. 3 May 2015.

Rosenberg, Andrew A., et al. "Exposing Fracking To Sunlight." Issues In Science & Technology 31.1

(2014): 74-79. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2015.

Works Cited (Continued)

Valentine, Katie. "Study Links Water Contamination To Fracking Operations In Texas And

Pennsylvania." ThinkProgress RSS. ThinkProgress.org, 15 Sept. 2014. Web. 5 May 2015.

"List of the Harmed." Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air. Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean

Water and Air, 21 May 2012. Web. 12 May 2015.

Oil and Gas Drilling Triggers Man-made Earthquakes in Eight States, USGS

Finds." Http://www.theguardian.com/. TheGuardian, 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 1 May 2015.

"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." U.S. Energy

Information Administration (EIA). U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 14 Apr.

2015.Web. 6 May 2015.

Annotated Bibliography

·         “Exposing Fracking to Sunlight”- This article compiled the negative effects of fracking and gave brief explanations on each. In addition, the article mentioned some of the laws concerning the environment that fracking was able to bypass. The part of my paper which speaks about the negative views of fracking is formulated mostly off of this article. Based off of this, I was able to narrow down my research and focus on specific concerns on fracking.

·         “The Marcellus Shale gas boom in Pennsylvania: employment and wage trends”- The first half of my paper speaks about the economic benefits that result from fracking. Pennsylvania contains part of the area known as the Marcellus Shale which is an important area for fracking. This article focuses on the economic effects which fracking has had on Pennsylvania’s economy. The facts and statistics found in this article give me an example to support the statement that fracking is good for the economy.

·         “Hydrofracking & the Environment”: Juror Attitudes, Beliefs, and Priorities”- This article is interesting because it is a prime example of both the duality of fracking and the American view towards it. The article again lists some positives and negatives of fracking, but it also speaks of the attitude of the general American public. Statistics included show the shift in concern from the environment to concern from the economy.

·         “Should Fracking Stop?”- This source was helpful because it explained the technicality and actual process of hydraulic fracturing. The illustrations and explanations made it clear how exactly fracking worked. In addition, it contains supporting arguments for both sides of the controversy on fracking. With the points listed in this article, I was able to formulate what I was going to write about for each view on fracking.

·         “Study Links Water Contamination To Fracking Operations In Texas And Pennsylvania”- For the part of my paper where I speak of the possible contamination of the environment and water supplies, this article was my primary source. It contains examples of when this contamination has taken place as well as explaining the possible causes for the contamination.

Research Paper - Pnina Grossman

Pnina Grossman

Professor Nayanda Moore

English Composition

5/19/15

More than Just the Facts, Ma’am: the Gender Wage Gap in America

            In 2014, women who were full-time wage and salary workers earned a median weekly wage of $719. While this may seem a decent salary, men had a median weekly wage of $871. This means that women were earning 82.5% of what their male counterparts were earning, a substantial difference (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014). This pervasive gap has existed ever since women joined the workforce, and while it has by and large been shrinking, it is hard to not acknowledge its current existence. Different factors have been cited in the reasons behind this gap, and to fully understand it, one must examine the family, occupation and timing choices that women make, as well as the sociological factors that impact those decisions.

To many, the obvious reason that women would earn less on average than men do is because women usually occupy the caregiver in a family. Interestingly, while approximately the same percentage of working people have children under 18, 37-38%, a larger percentage of working males had a spouse present in their household, 34% of working men as opposed to 24% of working women (see figure 1). This is likely due, in part, to the comparitively high amount of single parents who are women rather than men, 77% of single parents are mothers. However, the amount of working fathers from two-parent families, 85%, was still significantly higher than the amount of working mothers from two-parent families, 62%  (Casey, 1).

Figure 1

Percentages of men and women in the workforce by marital status, 2010

Source: "Median Weekly Earnings of Full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed Occupation and Sex." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 15 Feb. 2015. Web. 18 May 2015. pp. 45-47

            Note: all figures in this document were made using Microsoft Excel

It should also be noted that in every marital category, men out-earn women. Additionally, men without a spouse present, who would presumably have to assume the role of caregiver in their family, with children between 6 and 17 still have a higher median weekly salary than women who have children of the same age and a spouse present by $55[1]. Additionally, amongst working women with a spouse present, those who had no children actually earned less than those with children (see figure 2).

Figure 2

Median Weekly Salary by Gender and Marital Status

Source: "Median Weekly Earnings of Full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed Occupation and Sex." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 15 Feb. 2015. Web. 18 May 2015. pp. 45-47

As can be seen, it is not clear that the caregiver role that many women play in a family can account for the gender-based wage gap, though it may be responsible for some of it. In order to get a better sense of the effect of women being otherwise occupied, one can examine how men and women are compensated by the amount of hours they work.

One of the primary stated contributions to the wage gap is the fact that men tend to work more hours than women do, whether due to women’s “less competitive nature” or their role as caregiver in a family. This is, in fact, a correct assessment of men’s and women’s working habits. As can be seen in the figure 3, 77% of men work 40 to 60 or more hours a week, while only 61% of women do so.

Figure 3:

Women and men grouped by weekly hours worked

Source: "Median Weekly Earnings of Full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed Occupation and Sex." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 15 Feb. 2015. Web. 18 May 2015. pp. 40-41

However, this does not account for the discrepancies amongst men and women who do work the same hours. The comparative median weekly salaries of men and women divided into categories based on how many hours a week they worked is a more effective way to see the wage gap. As expected, both men and women who work more hours per week earn a higher median weekly salary than those who work less hours per week. However, gender-based trends can be seen in the different work categories. Men who work part time (39 hours or less) have lower median salaries than women who work full time (40 hours or more) when compared to people of the other gender who work the same amount of hours as they do. More specifics can be seen in figure 4. As can be gleaned from the overall wage gap, the fact that women out-earn men in part time jobs does not make up for the fact that men out-earn women in full time jobs. This stems from two factors. Firstly, men out-earn women by a larger percentage than women out-earn men. While women’s earnings in full time jobs as a percentage of men’s earnings in jobs from the same work hour bracket are between 84 and 87% (with the exception of 45 to 48 hours, which is 92%), men’s earnings in part time jobs as a percentage of women’s earnings are between 92 and 97% (with the exceptions of 35 to 29 hours, which is 89% and 1 to 4 hours, which is 100 the same amongst both genders).

Figure 4

Median Weekly Salary by Gender and Hours Worked

Source: "Median Weekly Earnings of Full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed Occupation and Sex." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 15 Feb. 2015. Web. 18 May 2015. pp. 40-41

Secondly, because the men are out-earning women in higher paying jobs, the percentage by which they are out-earning women is a larger monetary amount. This fact, combined with the previously mentioned fact that more men work full time jobs than women, accounts for some portion of the wage gap. However, it does not account for the gender-based pay discrepancies within people who work the same amount of hours. Additionally, it does not address the type of jobs worked by men and women and how they are compensated.

The gender-based discrepancies that exist within people who work the same amount of hours a week could be accounted for if, as is often claimed, women tend to work in lower paying and less competitive jobs than men do. As can be seen by comparing the median weekly earnings in different occupations, the two highest-paying categories of work are management, business, and financial operations occupations, in which there is a median weekly salary of $1063 when taking both sexes into account, and professional and related occupations, in which there is a median weekly salary of $1008 when both sexes are taken into account (figure 5).

Figure 5

Median Weekly Earnings by Occupation

Source: "Median Weekly Earnings of Full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed Occupation and Sex." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 15 Feb. 2015. Web. 18 May 2015. pp. 7, 10-35

 Surprisingly for those to who claim such, 45% of women in the workforce work in these competitive fields, while only 35% of men in the workforce do (see figure 6).

Figure 6

Percentages of Women and Men in the Workforce by Major Occupation group

Source: "Median Weekly Earnings of Full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed Occupation and Sex." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 15 Feb. 2015. Web. 18 May 2015. pp. 7, 10-35

However, in each of these categories men outearn women, making over 125% of what their female counterparts earn in all but one category. While this data broadly categorizes the pay grade for different occupation types, it does not take into account the scope of the different jobs inside these categories. Comparing the median weekly salaries earned by men and women in detailed jobs, however, does not fare much better. With the available data[2], one can see that for the same jobs, women earn between 62% and 102% of what men in those jobs earn. The most common occurance is that women will between 80% and 90% of what men earn, which happened in 44% of the jobs, and in only 2% of the jobs was women’s salary equal or greater than their male counterparts’. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014) While this data does not take hours worked into account or include all jobs, the specificity of the jobs involved make it indicitive of a substantially problematic gap.

            The data could be interpreted to represent at least a partial explanantions of why women tend to earn less money than men: women tend to work less hours, and while they are in competive fields also, they might be in less competitive positions than men in those fields. While men in caregiver roles still earned more than women who wre presumably in these roles, there is still a possibility that this assumed role for women effects their salary. However, even if these factors are contributing to gender wage gap, it is important to examine the sociological factors behind them to understand what pushes women to make these decisions.

            The first issue that must be addressed is that of parental leave. While there are circumstances under which men occupy a caregiver role in a family, the fact that men do not go through preganancy or give birth makes it such that this caregiving is less likely to impact their careers than women’s careers. It should be recalled that the Preganancy Discrimination Act, which stated that an employer could not refuse to hire, deny a promotion to, or fire a woman on the basis that she is pregnant in addition to requiring an employer to treat a pregnant woman the same as they would treat any other employee who becomes temporarily sick or disabled, was only incoporated into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in 1978, a mere 37 years ago. Additionally, this act did not provide job protection for women who needed to stay home to take care of the newborn, a protection only offered in 1993 with the passing of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and even this act only covered 60% of the labor force, due to its restrictions. Women who cannot afford to take off unpaid time to care for their newborns are stuck using sick time, vacation time, or simply going back to work. Currently, only 6 states in the US offer paid sick and maternity leave. Residents of the remaining 44 states are left at the mercy of their employers, 24% of which offer four or fewer weeks of paid maternity leave. Unfotunately, even in countries with long paid maternity leave, it negatively effects women’s career advancement (Cabeza et al, 80-81).

            Another factor is the level of competitiveness between men and women. While there is psychological evidence that men tend to over-estimate their own productivity and women under-estimate their own productivity, which could lead to men earning more than women (Palomino and Peyrache, 564), it is unclear that these studies themselves are not free of bias. Furthermore, these ideas could be connected to the societal status that men and women are assigned. An experiment in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization replicated previous experiments in which men and women had to perform tasks for rewards that had found men to be more competitive than men. However, when the experiment was replicated using a gender-neutral task, women showed just as much competitive ambition, and with a traditionally female task, they showed more. This led the team to believe that stereotypes play a large role in how men and women compete, a concept that can be applied to the workplace as well (Ekinci et al, 395). What’s more, while men’s perceptions of their deserved salaries are not impacted by their perceived social status, women’s tend to be, suggesting that women might feel they deserve less money because society is indicating such to them (Hogue et al, 573).

            The last factor that cannot be ignored is the infamous “glass ceiling.” While women make up 48% of the labor force, there only occupy an equal or higher number of management positions in seven out of the 50 biggest industries in the US (Cabeza et al, 74). Moreover, women if an industry is traditionally male-dominated, women have more trouble advancing in that industry (Cabeza et al, 76). In addition to this being problematic for the women currently in industry who are earning lower wages due to their lower positions, having more women in managerial positions could potentially lower the future wage gap (Huffman, 218). This makes the glass ceiling a huge factor in the current wage gap, and breaking it a potential solution.

            The data clearly points to the fact that the wage gap between genders exists in America. While the case can be made that this gap is present because of the career choices that women make, making such a case without considering the reasons that women as a whole make these choices is ignoring a large part of the equation. Arguably, if our society asks women to work less hours, it is still depriving them of money that they would have earned were they encouraged to work full time, and the same argument goes for staying out of competitive fields. Ultimately, this is an issue that will need to be examined in an interdisciplinary manner in order to come up with a comprehensive solution.

Works Cited:

Cabeza, Maria Florencia, Jennifer Barger Johnson, and Lee J. Tyner. "Glass Ceiling And Maternity Leave As Important Contributors To The Gender Wage Gap." Southern Journal Of Business & Ethics 3.(2011): 73-85. Business Source Complete. Web. 18 May 2015.

      This thoroughly researched article provided a mix of statistics and insights into how both maternity leave and the glass ceiling effect women’s employment opportunities. Comparing the maternity leave policies in different countries and what percentage of management positions are filled by women, they come to the conclusion that long maternity leaves prevent career growth. Additionally, they look at the different industries that seem to have a glass ceiling.

Casey, Tim. "Single Parent Snapshot 2014." Single Parent Snapshot 2014. Legal Momentum, 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 May 2015.

      A short list of statistics on single parenthood in the United States. This snapshot contains facts about single parenthood including who it effects and how it effects them.

Ekinci, Neslihan Arslan, et al. "Women can't jump? -- An experiment on competitive attitudes and stereotype threat." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 75.3 (2010): 395+. Academic OneFile. Web. 18 May 2015

      The main focus of this article was the experiment conducted by the authors. In response to many experiments that tested the relative competitiveness of men and women, these authors ran similar tests, but with gender neutral and traditionally feminine tasks instead of the traditionally masculine tasks used in other experiments. They found that the type of task effects the competitiveness of the subjects.

Hogue, Mary, Janice D. Yoder, and Steven B. Singleton. "The Gender Wage Gap: An Explanation Of Men's Elevated Wage Entitlement." Sex Roles 56.9/10 (2007): 573-579. Education Source. Web. 18 May 2015.

      The authors conducted an experiment to see how perception of social status effects confidence in the form of self-pay. They asked men and women to grade what their pay should be for a certain task, sometimes after saying that certain people (men/women) tend to be better at the task. While women were affected by these social cues, men, largely, were not.

Huffman, Matt L, mhuffman@uci.edu. "Organizations, Managers, And Wage Inequality." Sex Roles 68.3/4 (2013): 216-222. Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 18 May 2015.

      The author examines the effect of having women in management positions on upward career mobility for women. Using data gathered from many other studies, the author says that it is likely, but not conclusive, that having women in management positions allows a workplace to be more female friendly, thereby allowing more women to gain these powerful positions.

Palomino, Frederic, and Peyrache, Eloic-Anil. "Psychological Bias and Gender Wage Gap." Journal Of Economic Behavior & Organization 76.3 (2010): 563-73. Web. 18 May 2015.

      The authors examine the effect of men’s and women’s self-confidence on their wages. They conclude that men over-estimating their abilities actually results in them having higher paying jobs and earning more money.

"Median Weekly Earnings of Full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed Occupation and Sex." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 15 Feb. 2015. Web. 18 May 2015.

      Collected statistics from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics that are categorized by age, gender, weekly hours worked and many other categories to compare the effects of demographics on wage.

United States. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2011. Web. 18 May 2015.

      List of detailed jobs in the United States and their median weekly salaries for men and women.

---

[1] These demographics were compared, as opposed to those with children under 6, because the category of single parents with children under 6 was more likely to contain young single parents, which would artificially deflate their median weekly wages as compared to married parents with children of the same age.

[2] For accuracy, median weekly salaries could only be calculated for jobs in which over 50,000 people worked. The number of specific jobs that have over 50,000 female workers and over 50,000 male workers in 2014 was 117, and those were the jobs included in this data set.