Differences in depressive symptoms and related dysfunctions between Blacks and Whites: An empirical examination of current issues

The purpose of this research was to determine the relationships among race, socioeconomic status (SES), life crisis events (LCE), and depressive symptoms. Three specific aims guided this research. The first addressed a general epidemiologic question which asks whether there are significant differences in the prevalence of depressive symptoms and related dysfunctions between Blacks and Whites. The second examined whether these relationships are altered after SES factors are controlled, and analyzed with SES as in interaction term with race. The final objective was to explore the nature of racial differences in exposure and vulnerability to life crisis events as they relate to depression. An epidemiologic field survey (Whites = 1,648; Blacks = 450) was utilized to address the proposed research aims. Depression was measured by two scales: the Florida Health Study depression measure (FHS), and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS).Research findings indicated that while Blacks had significantly higher levels of FHS depressive symptoms on the FHS, these differences were eliminated once SES was controlled. No racial differences were found on the DIS depression scale.Blacks were found to be both significantly more exposed to and more vulnerable to the impact of life crisis events than Whites. Again, however, no statistically significant differences in exposure and vulnerability were found between these two racial groups when the data were controlled for SES. The role of socioeconomic factors in contributing to mental health is discussed. The author concludes that poverty is hazardous to one's psychological well-being. In addition, methodological issues associated with the conceptualization and operationalization of mental health constructs such as depression are explored.</p

Cross-cultural perspectives on illness and wellness: Implications for depression.

The purpose of this research is to determine the relationships among race, socioeconomic status (SES) and depressive symptomatology. Contrary to the findings of over 20 years of psychiatric epidemiology, two research teams have recently reported that Blacks, primarily those of low SES, are significantly more depressed than Whites occupying the same status. Using the same epidemiologic field survey data as one of these research groups (Whites=1,648; Blacks=450), the issues of race, SES, and depression are reopened for examination. Depressive symptomatology was measured by the Florida Health Study Depression Scale. The findings indicated that, in general, Blacks had significantly higher levels of depressive symptomatology than Whites. However, these differences were eliminated once SES, a composite of occupational status, education, and household income, was statistically controlled. Race, in other words, was not found to be an independent predictor of depression. The author concludes that poverty is hazardous to one\u27s psychological well-being and that race, by itself, is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status. In addition, methodological issues associated with the conceptualization and operationalization of socioeconomic status and mental health constructs such as depression are explored

Just the facts ma\u27am : The Supreme Court says no to media ride-alongs.

A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court restricting the scope and presence of the press during the execution of search/arrest warrants comes at the height of popularity of real-life crime TV. This paper explores this landmark court case within the context of our nation\u27s voyeuristic thirst for real-life drama. Also discussed is the growing reciprocal relationship between law enforcement and the various media. While video for popular programs are often obtained at a cost of citizens\u27 right to privacy, the authors of this paper argue that public display nevertheless plays an important function for our understanding of the criminal justice system

Tracking in the schools: Perceptions and attitudes of parents.

As America concludes the first decade of the new century, significant income and educational disparities based on race and social origin continue to persist. For many, the root cause of this disparity is an educational system that lacks equity and excellence -- especially for children of disadvantaged populations. By examining the overall impact of one common educational practice -- tracking -- this research attempts to shed light on how education can contribute to the ever widening achievement gap. Tracking, a controversial form of educational differentiation which involves the separation of students by perceived academic ability and curriculum, is pervasive in American schooling. Research on tracking is extensive and occupies a significant place in the sociology of education. In general, the research has evolved along two distinct lines of inquiry. The first considers the overall impact of this educational practice on student academic achievement while, the second, explores how student academic outcomes are mediated by teacher expectation. The current research examines another interesting dimension of this controversial issue. It attempts to uncover the reasons why tracking remains pervasive in schooling despite the large body of research evidence highlighting its negative impact on student outcomes. Earlier phases of this research, conducted by the authors, have examined the perceptions of two key stakeholders in the tracking debate, teachers and principals. This current study examines the views and perceptions of parents whose children have been tracked in order to provide additional insights as to why tracking remains widespread in American schooling. The findings reveal parents to be are among the strongest supporters of this educational practice

Tracking in the schools: Perceptions and attitudes of parents.

As America concludes the first decade of the new century, significant income and educational disparities based on race and social origin continue to persist. For many, the root cause of this disparity is an educational system that lacks equity and excellence -- especially for children of disadvantaged populations. By examining the overall impact of one common educational practice -- tracking -- this research attempts to shed light on how education can contribute to the ever widening achievement gap. Tracking, a controversial form of educational differentiation which involves the separation of students by perceived academic ability and curriculum, is pervasive in American schooling. Research on tracking is extensive and occupies a significant place in the sociology of education. In general, the research has evolved along two distinct lines of inquiry. The first considers the overall impact of this educational practice on student academic achievement while, the second, explores how student academic outcomes are mediated by teacher expectation. The current research examines another interesting dimension of this controversial issue. It attempts to uncover the reasons why tracking remains pervasive in schooling despite the large body of research evidence highlighting its negative impact on student outcomes. Earlier phases of this research, conducted by the authors, have examined the perceptions of two key stakeholders in the tracking debate, teachers and principals. This current study examines the views and perceptions of parents whose children have been tracked in order to provide additional insights as to why tracking remains widespread in American schooling. The findings reveal parents to be are among the strongest supporters of this educational practice

Adoption data and statistical trends.

There has never been a single, comprehensive, and continuous national data collection effort to capture information on all adoption activity in the 50 states of the United States and its territories. For the most part, what we know of the extent of formal adoption practices, whether public or private, domestic or international, derives from a combination of disparate data sources often pieced together and often estimated. The lack of a complete and consistent database is not surprising, argues Pertman (2000), considering that generations of secrecy have prevented us from knowing just how widespread [adoption] has become. The subject has been considered off-limits for so long, both by individuals and by society as a whole... that determining how many triad members there are—or have been—would require sorting through the individual finalization records of every courthouse in every city and town in every state. (pp. 8–9) Adoption data that are available vary in terms of purpose, reliability, and length of record-ing. The most common sources of adoption statistics today include (1) state court records of adoption filings and dispositions, (2) national foster care records compiled from state public welfare divisions, (3) U.S. State Department records of issued international visas, (4) vital records of birth certificates, and (5) general population surveys, including the U.S. Census. The first three of these capture information related to formally recognized adoptions, whereas pop-ulation surveys remain the primary sources for providing information on the extent of informal caregiving, adoption demand, and adoption-seeking behaviors. State bureaus of vital records have also been an important resource in keeping track of reissued birth certificates. Each of these data sources, coupled with recent advances in electronic data-gathering technologies, has made numerical compilation of adoption activity more possible tha