Black Kinship Circles in the 21st Century: Survey of Recent Child Welfare Reforms and How It Impacts Black Kinship Care Families

The Black American community has been celebrated for the historical success of kinship care. With an eye on the long legal history of attempts to address kinship care families, the federal government created an exploratory program to concentrate on solving the three goals of child welfare. Title IV-E Flexible Waiver program of the Social Security Act implemented in 2005 was designed to address the permanency, wellbeing, and safety of children with the goal of decreasing the number of children in out-of-home care. This paper argues Title IV-E Flexible Waivers should be used to address the continued health and economic needs of Black children in kinship care settings. Part II describes the role of kinship care in America as it has evolved from a private family arrangement often used by Black families into a structure that is regulated by state child welfare agencies using federal resources. Part III follows the implementation of several Title IV-E Waiver Demonstrations that states have effectuated in an effort to better use federal funds under tightening state budgets. Historically, Title-IV-E funds could only be used towards adoption, guardianship, or foster care. Part IV discusses how in 2005, Title IV-E Waiver Demonstrations Projects using Capped Allocations gave states greater flexibility by allowing federal funds to be used for expanded purposes, with the understanding that these resources have a preset cap. This paper focuses specifically on the impact of capped allocations in Florida and California on reducing the number of children in foster care placements and how this success is directly connected to the use of kinship care families. Although increased health risks of children in foster care are well documented, little is known about the physical and mental health needs of children in kinship care. Part V tells how Title IV-E Flexible Funding waivers could be used to address the continued health and economic needs of Black children in kinship care settings

\u3cem\u3eTechnological Tethereds\u3c/em\u3e: Potential Impact of Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice Risk Assessment Instruments

Issues of racial inequality and violence are front and center today, as are issues surrounding artificial intelligence (“AI”). This Article, written by a law professor who is also a computer scientist, takes a deep dive into understanding how and why hacked and rogue AI creates unlawful and unfair outcomes, particularly for persons of color. Black Americans are disproportionally featured in criminal justice, and their stories are obfuscated. The seemingly endless back-to-back murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and heartbreakingly countless others have finally shaken the United States from its slumbering journey towards intentional criminal justice reform. Myths about Black crime and criminals are embedded in the data collected by AI and do not tell the truth about race and crime. However, the number of Black people harmed by hacked and rogue AI will dwarf all historical records, and the gravity of harm is incomprehensible. The lack of technical transparency and legal accountability leaves wrongfully convicted defendants without legal remedies if they are unlawfully detained based on a cyberattack, faulty or hacked data, or rogue AI. Scholars and engineers acknowledge that the artificial intelligence that is giving recommendations to law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and parole boards lacks the common sense of an eighteen-month-old child. This Article reviews the ways AI is used in the legal system and the courts’ response to this use. It outlines the design schemes of proprietary risk assessment instruments used in the criminal justice system, outlines potential legal theories for victims, and provides recommendations for legal and technical remedies to victims of hacked data in criminal justice risk assessment instruments. It concludes that, with proper oversight, AI can increase fairness in the criminal justice system, but without this oversight, AI-based products will further exacerbate the extinguishment of liberty interests enshrined in the Constitution. According to anti-lynching advocate, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, “The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.” Thus, transparency is vital to safeguarding equity through AI design and must be the first step. The Article seeks ways to provide that transparency, for the benefit of all America, but particularly persons of color who are far more likely to be impacted by AI deficiencies. It also suggests legal reforms that will help plaintiffs recover when AI goes rogue

Constructing the First Year Experience: Improving Retention and Graduation Rates at a Hispanic-Serving Institution

In 2012, UNM teamed up with the Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education, to conduct a Foundations of Excellence® (FoE) First College Year Self Study addressing student success. As members of the First Year Steering Committee, we invented, coordinated, measured, and documented programs for linking students to the academic experiences and support that were best attuned to their needs

What’s (Race in) the Law Got to Do With It: Incorporating Race in Legal Curriculum

Gen Z is defined as including persons born after 1996 and, in 2018, the first Gen Z would have been twenty-two years old, the historically traditional age that many complete undergraduate studies and enter law school. With Gen Z entering law schools, the legal academy has been wholeheartedly preparing for the arrival of the first truly digital native generation in a myriad of ways. However, law training has been slow to progress in addressing the unspoken complexities of context and unconscious bias in the classroom with this population. Today’s Gen Z students were predominately raised in de facto segregated schools and communities reminiscent of the Silent Generation of those born between 1920s and 1940s. The legal academy now has a critical opportunity to educate future attorneys, legal scholars, executives, judges, and legislators through guided classroom discussions on systemic racism and unconscious bias beginning in their first year of law school. By embedding these conversations in legal education, students can shape their understanding of the cases they study and learn additional nuances to address in the law. Cognitive dissonance explains why conversations about race and discrimination require a purposeful focus. After helping students understand why they might have a visceral reaction to discussions about race, and helping them understand how to become receptive to new insights, the instructor can then introduce students to structural racialization and structural racism at a macro-level. This Essay outlines cognitive dissonance theory, color blindness ideology, and its relationship to racial inequality, while providing classroom techniques that encourage dialogue related to conversations on equity and race. These classroom strategies will help professors’ awareness of equity in the legal profession and the justice syste

KOB-4 Interviews Sonia Gipson Rankin and Joshua Kastenberg on the use of the Arnold Tool is setting bail

“The Arnold instrument is a tool that the judges have at their disposal and what you\u27ll notice from the order that the judge released today is she did use it as a tool and as a recommendation, but what she did take into account was the seriousness of the new criminal charge that has been filed,” said UNM Professor of Law, Sonia Gipson Rankin. “Let\u27s say that you have a person who\u27s loitering and they\u27re charged with possession of methamphetamine and let\u27s say that they\u27re a methamphetamine addict and they\u27ve been arrested and charged five times in misdemeanor court. Under the way the Arnold Tool works here, they\u27d be more likely to be held pending trail in jail and deprived of their liberty than a premeditated murder who had a clean wrap sheet,” said Joshua Kastenberg, a UNM law professor

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health