Are You Kidding Me?

What policy successes and failures have shaped outcomes for kids in the past five years, and what is necessary to create solutions in the next five? Join Naomi and Ian for the final episode of the Are You Kidding Me? podcast. From breakthroughs in school choice, to failures in child safety, to the growing ideological capture in child welfare and education, our hosts discuss “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of recent years–while looking ahead to what’s needed to create a better future for America’s children.Resources• Subscribe to the Are You Kidding Me? Monthly Newsletter • Stay Up to Date with The Free InitiativeShow Notes• 1:10 | “The Good”: Victories for School Choice • 5:04 | “The Good”: The Importance of Family Structure• 9:42 | “The Good”: Pushback against Extreme Ideas in Child Welfare • 13:10 | “The Bad”: Poor Policies around Reporting Child Safety Risks• 17:27 | “The Bad”: Misconceptions around Racial Disparities in Child Data • 18:40 | “The Bad”: The Family First Prevention Services Act’s Impact on Residential Care • 25:13 | “Looking Ahead”: Report Data by Family Structure• 29:35 | “Looking Ahead”: Better Policies around Child Maltreatment Fatalities • 32:31 | How to Stay Connected with Naomi and Ian’s Work

What will a new administration in Washington mean for American children, particularly the most vulnerable? This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Lynn Johnson, founder of All In Fostering Futures and former Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) during the first Trump administration. Lynn explores the federal government's role in influencing child welfare at the state level and highlights how reducing regulations and compliance burdens can enable child welfare workers to focus more on serving children and families directly.She reflects on ACF’s focus during the first Trump administration, particularly its efforts to prioritize permanency in order to improve long-term outcomes for children in foster care. Lynn also discusses the need to revisit certain policies around kinship care introduced during the Biden administration. She also argues that some of the Biden administration’s rules limited state governments’ ability to collaborate with faith-based organizations to support foster children. Finally, she underscores the importance of interagency efforts to promote stable families and prevent children from entering the foster system altogether.Resources • How Churches Can Make a Difference in the Lives of Children Who Need Foster Care | Naomi Schaefer Riley• New White House Proposal to Further Alienate Religious Foster Parents | Naomi Schaefer Riley• The Privilege Hiding in Plain Sight | Ian RoweShow Notes• 00:47 | What were the child welfare priorities of the first Trump administration, and how much influence does the federal government have over policies regarding children and families? • 02:20 | Is there a parallel between the Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Education, in terms of their ability to influence state and local policy?• 04:40 | What steps did you take in your role during the first Trump administration, and what steps should be taken now that will get us closer to positive impact? • 10:00 | What can the federal government do that states cannot do to support a child who has experienced extreme instability and a high number of placements in the foster system?• 11:59 | What have the last four years looked like for child welfare under the Biden administration?• 19:31 | The Biden administration worked to implement certain requirements for foster care organizations regarding LGBTQ+ children, which could have negative impact on faith-based agencies. How should the next administration approach this issue?• 24:47 | How much should the federal government focus on prevention when it comes to child welfare issues?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent on the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action in 2023, cited a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) concluding that black infants are more likely to survive if they are cared for by black doctors than white doctors. But a recent study using the same data suggests that race was not the real factor. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by George J. Borjas, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, to discuss his recent paper co-authored with Robert VerBruggen, “Do Black Newborns Fare Better with Black Doctors? The Limits of Measuring Racial Concordance.” Originally part of a project analyzing the fragility of empirical findings in social science, George’s study reanalyzes the same data used in the PNAS study to see whether the same result emerged. He and VerBruggen found that if the data is adjusted for low birthweight, the correlation between race of the doctor and infant survival disappeared. Their research has now been published by the National Academy of Sciences. George discusses how the narrative about the original study persists even when new data has called it into question. Resources● Do Black Newborns Fare Better with Black Doctors? The Limits of Measuring Racial Concordance | George J. Borjas and Robert VerBruggen ● Are Black Newborns More Likely to Survive with Black Doctors? | George J. Borjas and Robert VerBruggenShow Notes● 00:47 | How did you become interested in the topic of mortality rates among black newborns? What did you find in your study?● 05:50 | Why did your study find different results using the same data as the earlier one?● 07:57 | Why did the original authors not include low birthweight as a factor in their study?● 08:48 | What did you find about the distribution of doctors to women whose infants had low birthweight?● 11:01 | Have you shared this new finding with the original authors of the study?● 13:35 | Given that low birthweight is a universally accepted factor in infant mortality, are you surprised that the original result that black infants do better when they are matched with black doctors was so widely accepted?● 17:17 | Has your study received the same kind of attention as the original study?● 18:40 | Can we empirically answer the question of whether the specialties of doctors and their respective races is the driver of better results for black infants, rather than just the race itself?

How do we combat historically low fertility rates? While having fewer children has been correlated with higher rates of education among women, a significant group of highly educated women are still choosing to have big families. What is different about these women, and what can they teach us about the nature of parenthood and the importance of children?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Catherine Pakaluk, economist and associate professor at The Catholic University of America, to discuss her recent book, Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth. In researching her book, Dr. Pakaluk interviewed women with a college education who also have five or more children with their current spouse. The vast majority of mothers she spoke with viewed raising children as their first priority. This was true of their husbands as well. Work and career were the secondary goals that supported their ability to be parents. These mothers also viewed motherhood through the lens of their faith, whether Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or Jewish. They shared the belief that children are blessings from God. Dr. Pakaluk discusses the number of unintended, “spillover” benefits she observed among these families, such as increased independence in their children and a less materialistic approach to life, as well as what the implications of her research could be for public policy. Resources -Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth | Catherine Pakaluk-What Happens When Every Aspect of Parenting Is a Choice? | Naomi Schaefer RileyTime Stamps-00:37 | Why did you decide to begin this research?-02:30 | What were the criteria for the women included in your study?-04:44 | What were these women like, and what was the motive behind their choices to have large families?-09:20 | How do we shift the conversation around the declining birth rate from technical interventions to the deeper themes you are talking about?-13:13 | How do these women think about their choices with regard to their career? Did they make the choice from a very early age, and how did their decisions fit in with their husbands’ decisions?-17:57 | How do you reconcile the strong role religion plays in the lives of these women with the rising secularism of young people we are seeing today?-20:50 | How does the religious atmosphere in these families affect their view on material things? What are the other unintended benefits of having large families?

Much like other governmental agencies, child welfare systems are long overdue for a digital upgrade. But how can we ensure the technological tools implemented truly equip caseworkers and supervisors to meet the needs of children and families?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Sixto Cancel, the founder and CEO of Think of Us, a tech nonprofit working to reform the child welfare system in the US. Inspired by his own story in foster care, where one, outdated sentence in his case file determined the trajectory of his time in the system, Sixto founded Think of Us to improve the tech landscape of the foster care system. From the need to incorporate assistive AI into case management to improving federal incentives to encourage innovation, Sixto discusses the key areas in need of reform. Resources• Taking Child Welfare into the 21st Century | Naomi Schaefer Riley, Ian Rowe, and Greg McKay• Big Data Can Save Kids | Naomi Schaefer Riley• Think of Us | Sixto CancelShow Notes• 00:52 | What is the technology landscape of child welfare, and are the systems being used up to date?• 03:07 | What is the origin of your name, Sixto Cancel? • 04:06 | What about your story led you down this path to work toward better experiences for youth in foster care?• 06:38 | What could systems be doing differently to take into account all of the options for foster youth?• 09:28 | How are you now using virtual support services for youth getting ready to age out of the system?• 12:15 | Many child welfare agencies contract with different providers to meet their needs. How is this currently working, and could it be more efficient?• 15:32 | Why was the federal funding you secured ineffective to upgrade the technology systems within child welfare agencies?• 17:08 | What would be the better approach? Should the federal government still be involved, or would that run the same risk of having just one large entity dominating the space and discouraging innovation?• 20:05 | Are you planning to expand the direct service component of your organization?• 21:22 | Thinking about the data you’ve collected so far, what would say is the biggest mismatch between what people need and what is being offered to them?

Because of the Family First Prevention Services Act passed in 2017, residential care facilities, or “group homes,” for foster youth have lost significant funding—leading to the closure of many residential treatment options. Many advocates of the policy believe that placement with families are always the best option for kids. But what about the numerous foster youth who report immense benefits from their time in residential care? This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Bruce Henderson, a former professor of psychology at Western Carolina University for over 40 years. Drawing on his background in child psychology, Bruce conducted a comprehensive review of the research on residential care facilities to understand how time spent in these homes affects foster youth. This research led to the publishing of his recent book, Challenging the Conventional Wisdom about Residential Care for Children and Youth. In this episode, Bruce explains the findings of his research and why he believes residential care must continue to be supported as an option for foster youth. Lastly, he shares a way to support The Black Mountain Home for Children and Families, a very impactful residential care home for foster youth in Black Mountain, North Carolina, that has suffered significant damage from Hurricane Helene. We encourage our listeners to give as they are able. Resources• Challenging the Conventional Wisdom about Residential Care for Children and Youth | Bruce B. Henderson• A Critical Dialogue on Residential Care for Children and Youth: What We Really Know and Questions of Quality | Bruce B. Henderson and James P. Anglin• Why Foster Children Are Sleeping in Offices and What We Can Do About It | Naomi Schaefer Riley et al. Show Notes• 00:54 | What motivated your interest in this research topic?• 02:32 | What is the Family First Prevention Services Act?• 05:44 | Why does residential care carry so much stigma today?• 07:09 | What were your findings when you looked at residential care facilities in other countries?• 09:06 | Is there a version of Family First that you would have supported?• 10:51 | What are the circumstances that make it possible for residential care to have a positive impact on a child’s life?• 13:17 | Do attitudes around race play a role in the policy conversation around residential care?• 13:51 | How do you make appropriate comparisons when you look at this research and what studies have you found helpful when evaluating the effects of residential care on foster youth?• 17:14 | Does research show if the type of organization plays a role in the success of the residential home (i.e., faith-based, etc.)?• 18:21 | Do you envision a situation where we start to rethink whether we can really do without residential care? Can we go back?• 21:06 | Where does the financing come from for these facilities and programs?• 24:10 | How to Help The Black Mountain Home for Children and Families

Technological innovations are often sold to the public as ways to make life easier. But what if the increasing prevalence of technology in our lives is actually crowding out human experiences that are integral to children’s development and well-being?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by AEI Senior Fellow Christine Rosen to discuss her new book, The Extinction of Experience. Christine argues that the unmitigated push to integrate technology into all areas of life can be particularly harmful for children, who could be missing out on fundamental human experiences that help them grow. She highlights how even simple practices like learning cursive, or more significant milestones like dating—without the medium of screens—play a fundamental role in shaping who children become as adults. Contrary to tech moguls like Elon Musk who want to form new human communities on other planets, Christine believes we have a responsibility to find solutions that make life on earth a good one for children. Making the active choice to cut out technology from certain areas of our lives could be a good place to start. Resources• The Extinction of Experience: Being Human in a Disembodied World | Christine Rosen• The Lost Art of Waiting | Christine Rosen• Katharine Birbalsingh on Banning Smartphones from Schools | Naomi Schaefer Riley, Ian Rowe, and Katharine BirbalsinghShow Notes:• 01:13 | When did you first start noticing the negative impacts screens were having on kids?• 03:11 | Does it bring you some comfort that there is a growing movement to remove cell phones from schools?• 05:14 | What are some of the individual experiences we are losing because of technology? Are there some experiences that are alright to replace?• 08:00 | How has technology affected dating and the romantic lives of young people?• 10:03 | Can we recapture the tradition of having ‘forced’ human interaction in spaces like churches, schools, and homes?• 12:36 | What can you tell us about the individuals and companies who are making these technologies?• 15:19 | Figures like Elon Musk have resorted to colonizing new planets as a solution to some of our human problems. Is this the right response? How would you respond?• 18:08 | What are the chances that a child who has been raised with so much technology will be able to dig themselves out of this?• 20:55 | Is there a role for faith and religious institutions in all of this?

When parents perpetuate abuse against their children, it is all too likely that they themselves were also victims of abuse. Children who have experienced maltreatment face significant barriers to flourishing when they reach adulthood, but with support and the right tools, it is possible for individuals to make different choices and break the cycle of abuse in their family. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Savannah Nelson, an undergraduate student at BYU-Idaho and recent author of an op-ed for the Institute for Family Studies, “Ending the Cycle of Intergenerational Child Abuse.” Savannah discusses her personal connection to the topic, sharing how her mother overcame the abuse she endured from her parents and was able to make a different choice when starting her own family. She also shares what she has learned from her research, including how forming strong marriages is associated with lower risk of abuse, and how marriage and family education can be an effective tool for equipping parents to create healthy relationships with each other and with their children. Resources-Ending the Cycle of Intergenerational Child Abuse | Savannah Nelson and Timothy Rarick-Married Fatherhood | Ian RoweShow Notes-00:52 | How did you come to write about this topic?-03:03 | What does it mean to be a “transitional character”?-04:24 | What kind of process must an individual go through in order to become a transitional character?-05:57 | How must a child make the choice to make a change even when the change hasn’t been modeled for them? -07:17 | How can we help children who have experienced abuse feel confident that they are able to form healthier relationships in their own life? -09:37 | What role does marriage play in breaking the cycle of abuse, and what do you think of the fact that more and more young people are not considering marriage or children within marriage as part of their future?-12:26 | What resources are available through churches and religious communities to educate individuals on ending the cycle of abuse? Is this topic incorporated into family and marriage education in the context of the LDS church?

Concerns about a mental health crisis among young people have produced broad initiatives to improve overall mental well-being or “prevent” mental illness. But what evidence do we have that these programs are producing desirable outcomes? This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Carolyn Gorman, the Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute. In a new report to be released on September 12, Carolyn examines whether school-based mental health initiatives are useful for combatting mental health issues among kids. She explains that, in many cases, the continued effort to broadly incorporate mental health treatment, awareness, and “prevention” programs into school systems do more harm than good. In light of the recent Georgia school shooting, the current conversation around mental health continues to be a pressing one. However, as Carolyn notes, policies targeted specifically toward individuals with severe mental health disorders are more likely to affect change than broad funding for mental health awareness and prevention. Resources-A Better Youth Mental Health Policy | Carolyn D. Gorman and Scott Dziengelski-Senate Gun Bill Includes Solid Mental Health Policies—But Must Focus on Serious MentalIllness | Carolyn D. GormanShow Notes00:40 | What were the findings of your research on theimpact of current mental health policy initiatives on the well-being andeducational outcomes of kids?02:29 | What are the downsides of the prevailing approachesto mental health policy? 05:38 | You divide mental health approaches into threetiers. Can you break those down?08:58| What is considered a mental illness and what is not?When are services at school appropriate, and where are the areas where schoolsare attempting to treat kids when they shouldn’t?11:51 | What do you mean when you say the distinct goals ofmental health and education are often in direct conflict?14:28 | What is the right role for schools to play in therealm of children’s mental health? 17:16 | How do mental health professionals view theencroachment of mental health treatment into schools? How can we untangle this?22:49 | How do social emotional learning programsexacerbating mental health issues?28:11 | What are the final policy recommendations from yourreport, and is there any distinction in recommendations based on the age of thechild?

Policymakers, researchers, and activists in the child welfare field frequently point to racial disparities within the system, as evidence of the systemic bias. But what are the true causes of these disparities? And how should governmental bodies tasked with protecting civil rights understand this issue?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Rafael Mangual, Nick Ohnell Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, to discuss his recent resignation from the New York State Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights after it conducted an investigation of racial disparities in the child welfare system. Rafael discusses the report published by the committee, which includes recommendations that would significantly diminish the power of the child welfare system. He includes data from his own research that challenges the findings of the committee and expresses concern that other state committees are going to engage in the same kind of work that is thin on evidence and heavy on ideology. Resources-Kids In Jeopardy | Rafael Mangual-The Radical Push to Dismantle Child Protective Services | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Rafael Mangual-Advisory Committees | US Commission on Civil RightsShow Notes04:00 What are the disparities in the child welfare system, and what are the potential explanations for them? How did the committee go about gathering information to answer that question?11:30 How do committee members respond when alternative data is presented that suggests other causes for disparities besides systemic racism? 20:48 How would you respond to the claim that cash payments to families involved in child welfare will effectively address issues of abuse or neglect, and what do activists believe will be accomplished by this idea?

In 1996, Rev. W.C. Martin and his wife partnered with 22 families in their 100-person congregation to adopt 77 of the most difficult-to-place children in the Texas foster care system. A recent film, Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot, tells the stories of these families and the inspiring results of their efforts. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Joe Knittig, CEO of Care Portal and executive producer of Possum Trot. As leader of an organization designed to connect caretakers and resources in local communities to children in need, Joe was already well-versed in bringing communities together to support vulnerable kids. As executive producer of Possum Trot he hopes to broaden these efforts, encouraging faith communities across the nation to step up for kids in foster care. Resources-Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot | Angel Studios -How Churches Can Make a Difference in the Lives of Children Who Need Foster Care | Naomi Schaefer RileyShow Notes-00:40 | Tell us about your background and how it led to your involvement in the film?-02:15 | How does Care Portal connect caretakers with children in need?-05:49 | What is the story behind the Possum Trot? What are you hoping to accomplish through the film?-08:03 | When the Martin family approached the state about adopting the most difficult-to-place children, what was the initial response?-10:20 | The story of Possum Trot takes place in a historically black church community. How does this story contribute to the conversation around race in the child welfare system? -13:55 | How could the film catalyze churches and faith-based organizations to become more involved in child welfare and the foster care system? -16:17 | The film highlights the real struggles of fostering children. Is that part of the story resonating with audiences?-19:04 | How can listeners see the film?-20:18 | You are showing screenings of the film in church communities—what impact are you seeing?-21:48 | How are the original families doing?

As the school choice movement has gained momentum in recent years, parents have become a political force to be reckoned with. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, to discuss his recent book, The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools. The book highlights the key contributors to school choice’s spread across the country, the wealth of research on ways educational freedom benefits all children, and what is required to continue to advance educational freedom in the US. In this episode, Corey explains the important role of parents in the fight for school choice—particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic—the benefits of school choice for low-income communities, and the ongoing political shift towards school choice at the local, state, and federal levels. Resources-The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools | Corey DeAngelis-Why We Must Eliminate Barriers to School Choice Nationwide | Ian Rowe-‘The Death of Public School’ Review: Find a Place to Learn | Naomi Schaefer Riley-When Parents Do Know Best: Darla Romfo on the Viability of School Choice Programs | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Ian RoweShow Notes-0:00:45 | What was your purpose in writing the book?-0:03:24 | How did school closures and parents’ awareness of course content during the COVID-19 pandemic accelerate the school choice movement?-0:07:13 | What does research reveal about the impact of school choice on upward mobility, and are “school choice alliances” growing in low-income communities?-0:10:10 | Should school choice waivers apply to all institutions, or should there be limitations?-0:14:08 | Which states are the “next frontiers” for school choice? -0:16:57 | How does school choice help ensure high quality education options?-0:20:36 | Would abolishing the Department of Education benefit or harm school choice?

The country’s youth mental health crisis continues to increase demand for psychiatric beds. Yet, the availability of residential treatment facilities, reserved for youth with severe emotional disturbances, is on the decline. What impact does this have on youth—including those in foster care--with high levels of need, and how do we ensure access to treatment for the children who need it most?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Scott Dziengelski, a consultant at King and Spalding LLP and former director of policy and regulatory affairs at the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare, to discuss his recent report, “Deinstitutionalization Redux: The Decline in Residential Mental Health Treatment for Youth.” The report highlights the concerning shortage of residential treatment facilities and bed space for youth who need care. In this episode, Scott explains the current move toward deinstitutionalization, the effect of negative media messaging around residential treatment centers, and the crucial policy and cultural changes needed to ensure youth with severe challenges receive the care they need.Resources-Deinstitutionalization Redux: The Decline in Residential Mental Health Treatment for Youth | Scott Dziengelski-How Foster Kids Are Being Damaged by a Lack of Home Care Facilities | Naomi Schaefer Riley-Why Foster Children Are Sleeping in Offices and What We Can Do About It | Sean Hughes et al. Show Notes-00:58 | How did you get involved in children’s mental health policy?-02:20 | What does the spectrum of need look like for children’s mental health, and which children are served by residential treatment facilities?-05:26 | How do you interpret the data around the rise in children’s mental health challenges?-07:34 | What led to the decrease in availability of residential treatment facilities?-10:34 | Why are people advocating for the deinstitutionalization of residential treatment facilities? -13:23 | Two congressional hearings on residential treatment recently took place. What impact will these have on the availability of residential treatment?-16:55 | How does tying educational funds to children help when residential treatment is needed?-21:18 | What is your recommendation on Medicaid dollars following children in care? How do we shift the narrative on residential treatment facilities? -25:37 | Which states are doing the best in regard to residential treatment facilities?

The dramatic rise in substance use disorders over the past decade has altered—indeed, destroyed—many American lives, but how does this epidemic affect children? And who is ensuring their safety?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Sarah Font, child welfare researcher and associate professor of sociology and public policy at Penn State, to discuss a recent published statement Sarah wrote on behalf of AEI’s child welfare working group. “The US Is Failing Substance-Exposed Infants” critiques policies which limit Child Protective Services’ responsibility to aid substance-exposed infants, and how voluntary “Plans of Safe Care” put in place by some states are insufficient to address the dilemma. In this episode, Sarah details the effects of drug exposure in infants, whether and how positive toxicology screens in new mothers and infants are reported, and what practices in medicine and child protection need to change in order to prioritize the well-being of children. Resources-The US Is Failing Substance-Exposed Infants | Sarah Font et al.-The US Is Failing Infants Exposed to Drugs and Alcohol | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Sarah FontShow Notes-0:01:00 | How should we understand drug exposure among infants?-0:01:34 | What are the dangers to children of substance exposure in utero and when a child is under the supervision of parents who are addicted?-0:03:28 | Why is there a reduction in foster care placements when there is an increase in reported abuse?-0:04:44 | What are plans of safe care intended to accomplish?-0:06:29 | What was the rationale behind Mass General Brigham’s new policy on substance abuse reporting? -0:09:16 | How have we lost our focus regarding the effects of drug policy on children?-0:11:44 | Is the normalization of drug use working as a gateway to children’s drug exposure?-0:13:34 | What are some policy changes that should be considered by states and medical institutions? -0:16:11 | What states or localities can we point to as models for others to follow?-0:16:57 | What happens when hospitals contact CPS? -0:19:00 | What prevention strategies exist?

How has the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson affected foster care and adoption in the United States during the past two years?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Herbie Newell, President & Executive Director of Lifeline Children’s Services, one of the largest adoption agencies in the United States. Herbie discusses how the recent limits on abortion access in some states have impacted adoption agencies. He highlights the cultural shifts that have emerged since the Dobbs decision, including the decreased stigma surrounding adoption. He also addresses the slight increase in foster care numbers following the ruling, and how to interpret it, as well as how we can create a more positive outlook on adoption as an option for mothers, fathers, and children in the United States.Resources-Doing Adoption the “Right” Way Can Work for Everyone Involved | Naomi Schaefer Riley -Elizabeth Kirk on Adoption Post Dobbs | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Ian Rowe-What is it Like to Place Your Child For Adoption | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Timothy P. CarneyShow Notes-0:00:57 | How has the atmosphere around adoption changed post Dobbs?-0:03:59 | How has the view of adoption shifted in the pro-life community?-0:06:31 | Has there been an increase in foster care post-Dobbs?-0:09:44 | How should we think about adoption as an option for mothers and how can we reduce the stigma women choosing adoption face?-0:13:20 | What pressures might women feel in the adoption process? How do we address them?-0:18:23 | Does adoption stigma drive single-mother households? How do we better involve men throughout the adoption process?

The steep increase in mental health challenges among young children is one of today’s most widely discussed issues. But why is so little attention paid to the role of family dynamics in creating or reducing stress for kids?This week, Ian and Naomi are joined by Dr. Nicholas Zill, research psychologist and senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, to discuss his most recent report, “Families Matter to Kids’ Mental Health.” In the report, Dr. Zill analyzes data from the National Survey on Children’s Health to demonstrate how family structure affects not only the likelihood children will need mental health services, but also whether they will receive them. He points out a number of striking findings, including how foster children are the group most likely to be using medication to treat mental health problems. Dr. Zill emphasizes how understanding a child’s family structure is vital to treating their mental health, and how other methods of combatting mental illness beyond medication should be employed as well. Resources-Families Matter to Kids’ Mental Health | Nicholas Zill-Why Foster Kids Aren’t Getting the Mental Health Care They Need | Naomi Schaefer RileyShow Notes-00:44 | Why does family structure get missed in the conversation about kids’ mental health?-08:25 | Why does the gap between the need and receipt of mental health services come from? How can we close that gap? -11:48 | How do we share this data without seeming like we are blaming families for their impact on a child’s mental health? -13:08 | How do we make sure we are talking about the youth mental health crisis in an accurate, right-sized way? -16:46 | Do younger generations having different attitudes toward marriage and forming families? -18:29 | What is the good news on this issue? -21:23 | How can we encourage reporting of data on family structure?

Conventional wisdom suggests that developing a child’s intellect is the job of schools, but parents spend far more time with their kids than teachers do. There is a lot that parents can and should do on this front. This week, Naomi is joined by Eva Moskowitz, founder and CEO of Success Academy Charter Schools in New York City, and author of the recent book, A+ Parenting: The Surprisingly Fun Guide to Raising Surprisingly Smart Kids. Eva discusses how many parents feel an obligation to come down to their child’s level when it comes to speech or play, but in fact, their child may benefit more from being included in the complex or stimulating discussions and activities that parents are already enjoying. From movies, to games, to music played in the car, Eva has curated a list of materials and activities that are both age-appropriate and intellectually challenging for kids. What is important, Eva argues, is for parents to enjoy time with their kids, as this creates greater satisfaction for children, too. Resources-A+ Parenting: The Surprisingly Fun Guide to Raising Surprisingly Smart Kids | Eva Moskowitz-Teach Your Children Well | Naomi Schaefer Riley Show Notes-00:55 | What inspired you to write this book?-03:27 | How should parents work to develop their child’s intellect differently than schools?-06:16 | How does this guidance translate across class divides? Are you hoping to bridge the gap between parents who are familiar with these cultural staples and those who aren’t? -09:57 | Why does the specific book a child reads matter beyond just the fact that they are reading at all?-11:59 | Can you give an example of the type of movie that is worthwhile for kids to watch, and why?-15:46 | How do you know when these activities are appropriate, or if too much is going over the child’s head? -18:08 | What are your thoughts on the impact of cellphones and social media on children’s intellectual development?-21:08 | How can we engage in parenting in a way that helps us find more of the joy in the process?

Why do some members of the “elite class”—those who are educated, wealthy, and largely raised in stable, two-parent homes—publicly advocate for harmful beliefs while not subscribing to them in their private lives?This week marks Are You Kidding Me?’s 100th episode! For this special episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Rob Henderson, psychologist and author of the recent book Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class. Having experienced an unstable childhood in the foster care system before then enlisting in the military and going on to complete a PhD in psychology, Rob observed a phenomenon among American elites he eventually coined as “luxury beliefs.” Luxury beliefs are held ideas that confer status to the wealthy while inflicting harm on the poor and working class. Rob discusses where he believes this phenomenon originated, the practical impact it has for low-income communities, and how he tries to reverse the trend through sharing data and encouraging people to think more deeply about the ideas they are espousing. ResourcesTroubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class | Rob HendersonLuxury Beliefs That Only the Privileged Can Afford | Rob HendersonTroubled: A Book Event with Rob Henderson | Naomi Schaefer Riley, Sally Satel, Rob HendersonShow Notes01:05 | Can you talk about your background with the foster care system, and what the biggest influence in your early years was on your thinking later in life?02:59 | What was the pivot for you that allowed you to find success and eventually write your book?09:56 | Why are members of the “elite class” so predisposed to express certain beliefs in public but not hold to them in their private lives?15:04 | How does the act of holding luxury beliefs by the elite class impact members of the working class?18:45 | Can you talk about the luxury belief dynamic as it plays out with drug use, and how is that dynamic playing out in families? 23:52 | Are you finding that some of the ideas you express in your book are being made by others into their own kinds of luxury beliefs?26:57 | How do we confront luxury beliefs in such a way that we can reverse the impact they are having on low income communities?

The “Success Sequence” refers to a series of steps—graduating high school, working full-time, and marrying before having children—that are shown to dramatically decrease one’s likelihood of living in poverty. But what happens if, for a variety of reasons, these steps are completed out of order? In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Angela Rachidi, a senior fellow at AEI focusing on poverty and the effects of federal safety-net programs on low-income individuals and families. Angela discusses her recent report, which examines how completing certain “success sequence” steps (namely, graduating high school, finding full-time work, and getting married) can impact poverty rates for unmarried mothers. Angela explains the immense economic burden and reduced odds of escaping poverty faced by those who have children before marriage or completing their education, especially when the mother is not working toward those critical life milestones. However, her findings indicate that for these young parents, education and marriage in particular have an immensely positive impact, even if these milestones are achieved after having a child. Naomi, Ian, and Angela conclude by discussing how policymakers and community leaders can better encourage and reinforce the value of the completing the steps of the “success sequence” among American youth and adults, even when life does not go exactly as planned. Resources-Dynamics of Families After a Nonmarital Birth | Angela Rachidi-The Success Sequence for Unmarried Mothers | Angela RachidiShow Notes-0:00:44 | Why did you decide to study this particular population?-0:03:12 | Can you talk about the “Fragile Families” dataset that you used for this report?-0:05:08 | What were your findings for these women? -0:12:34 | Can you isolate marriage in correlation with reducing poverty?-0:14:29 | Can you talk about the role of multi-partner fertility?-0:16:48 | How should we share this information with young women in these situations? 0:18:53 | What role do you think personal faith commitment plays into all of this?

Why are Americans having fewer children? And why do younger Americans seem resistant to the idea of having children at all?In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Tim Carney, a senior fellow at AEI focusing on family, religion, and civil society in America. Tim discusses his upcoming book, “Family Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder than It Needs to Be.” Tim unpacks all the ways parenting has become harder--from the expectation that parents must provide children with every extracurricular opportunity, to the collapse of marriage and the lack of neighborhoods where kids can walk places. He also argues for a return to the idea that children are inherently valuable—not just vehicles for accomplishments. To conclude, Tim makes recommendations for how coaches, local legislators, educators, and parents can encourage younger people to prioritize getting married and starting a family as they are building their lives. ResourcesFamily Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder Than It Needs to Be | Tim CarneyCivilizational Sadness: We Are Becoming Sad and Afraid, and So We Are Making Fewer Babies | Tim CarneyShow Notes- 0:00:45 | What prompted you to write the book? - 0:04:21 | Are there any ways we can make culture more family-friendly through public policy?- 0:06:56 | What makes you different that allows you to see the problems here? What can we do to cultivate more individuals who value family and children?- 0:09:35 | Do you need an underlying religious belief in order to see family differently?- 0:13:52 | How is all of this affecting the trend of young people who are delaying marriage? - 0:23:00 | How can we use research like Raj Chetty’s around upward mobility to strengthen the case for families?