Disparate Effects of Disruptive Events on Children ================================================== * Florencia Torche * Jason Fletcher * Jennie E. Brand ## Abstract Disruptive events such as economic recessions, natural disasters, job loss, and divorce are highly prevalent among American families. These events can have a long-lasting impact when experienced during childhood, potentially altering academic achievement, socioemotional well-being, health and development, and later life socioeconomic status. Much research has considered the overall impact of disruptive events on children’s lives, but the consequences of disruption also vary across groups. The same event may have profound negative consequences for some groups, minor or no impact for others, and even be a generative or positive turning point for other groups. This issue focuses on the disparate consequences of disruptive events on children. We consider theoretical approaches accounting for effect heterogeneity and methodological challenges in identifying unequal impacts. We also review an emerging multidisciplinary literature accounting for variation in the impact of disruption across several widely studied domains that affect children’s life chances, including economic, household, educational, health, and environmental events. * Disruptive events * heterogeneity * socioeconomic disparities * social normativity * childhood * children’s outcomes Disruptive events can change the course of people’s lives. These events can occur at the micro level, such as job loss, home loss, divorce or separation, incarceration, residential migration, or health shocks affecting individuals and families. Or they can occur at the macro level, such as economic recessions, pandemics, school closures, or natural disasters affecting large populations. These two levels are intertwined: for example, more job loss occurs during economic recessions and more illness occurs during a pandemic. Children are particularly vulnerable to disruptive events because shocks experienced in early life could alter their developmental trajectories and result in long-term consequences on their health, attainment, and well-being. Much literature documents that the risk of experiencing disruptive events is stratified by socioeconomic conditions. People with fewer resources are usually more likely to experience different kinds of disruption, ranging from economic and family instability to incarceration and health shocks. Yet a higher likelihood of experiencing disruption does not necessarily lead to a larger effect of disruption. As we argue, variation in the effects of disruptive events depends on different, and sometimes offsetting, mechanisms. In this introduction, we focus on the impact of disruptive events on children and how the impact varies within the population. We provide a theoretical framework to consider the mechanisms accounting for variation across different groups. We then discuss methodological approaches and challenges in capturing heterogeneity in the effect of disruption. Finally, we describe variation in the impact of micro- and macro-level disruptions along several widely studied domains relevant for children’s life chances, including economic, household, educational, health, and environmental. ## THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK TO UNDERSTAND VARIATION IN THE EFFECTS OF DISRUPTION The consequences of disruptive events vary across different groups of children. The literature suggests that the same disruptive event can have profound negative consequences for some groups, minor or no impact for others, and even present a generative or positive turning point for other groups. Aggregate effects can therefore mask substantial heterogeneity and miss dissimilar, and even opposite, effects across different subpopulations. We consider two broad theoretical approaches as to how the effects of disruptive events on children vary across groups. These approaches focus, respectively, on disparities in socioeconomic resources of those affected by disruption, and on variation in the normativity and predictability of shocks for different groups. These theoretical approaches systematize accumulated insights based on empirical work from several disciplines in the social sciences, including sociology, psychology, and economics. We recognize that other sources of heterogeneity exist, including differential susceptibility due to genetic or personality factors, or the age at which events occur. Even within these sources of variation, however, structural conditions governed by socioeconomic resources or social normativity account for substantial variation in the effects of disruption on children’s lives (Aquino, Brand, and Torche 2022). ### Structural Factors: Disparities in Socioeconomic Resources Individuals and families with limited economic resources are often less equipped to reduce the risk of exposure and compensate for the negative consequences of disruptive events than their more advantaged peers. The limited resources of disadvantaged households, including lower levels of education, income, wealth, and other resources that could support a family safety net, render them less able to buffer negative shocks than more advantaged households. For example, the negative consequences of a recession on economic well-being are stronger for parents with fewer skills and assets not only because they are more likely to become unemployed but also because if they lose their jobs, they have a more limited ability to self-insure and take longer to return to employment (Heathcote, Perri, and Violante 2020; Krusell and Smith 1999; Mukoyama and Şahin 2006). Research suggests that families with more resources can better compensate for the impact of early-life shocks than disadvantaged families. For example, in utero exposure to a natural disaster has a strong negative effect on children’s cognitive development among disadvantaged families but no effect among more advantaged families (Torche 2018) and in utero exposure to radiation reduces educational achievement only among families of low socioeconomic status (SES) (Almond, Edlund, and Palme 2009). The consequences of disruptive exposures when resources to cope are limited might be especially persistent if they occur in early childhood because early-life shocks can shape individual socioemotional and cognitive trajectories in ways that are increasingly difficult to modify over the life course, resulting in long-lasting effects (Cunha and Heckman 2007; Heckman 2006). Several mechanisms might account for these socioeconomic gradients in the impact of disruption. In some cases, the lack of economic resources directly shapes the ability of families to invest in children to compensate for the influence of negative shocks. For example, more advantaged families can afford financial investments for their children in the form of lessons, tutoring, private school tuition, and enrichment activities (Schneider, Hastings, and LaBriola 2018). Socioeconomic gradients are also correlated with diverse kinds of psychological, social, and cultural resources that go beyond pecuniary assets and include time constraints, access to information, and availability of support networks (Hsin 2012; Torche 2018). The association between economic advantage and diverse resources is at least partially causal, as when financial scarcity imposes a cognitive load that reduces mental bandwidth (Mullainathan and Shafir 2013) or when poverty results in the inability to have a stable schedule, depleting people of valuable time and ability to plan their days (Edwards 2018). Additionally, socioeconomic stratification in interactional styles and familiarity with institutions could result in unequal responses to disruptive events that limit their negative effects for more advantaged families (Calarco 2018; Lareau 2011). Resources governing variation in the effect of disruption are not restricted to individuals or families; they might also be relevant for aggregate units such as schools, cities, or countries. For example, in this issue, Manuel Alcaino and Pablo Argote (2024) show that the negative impact of a strong earthquake in Chile on children’s educational achievement varied across municipalities depending on the governing experience of the mayor. This finding suggests that experienced bureaucrats were able to procure and mobilize resources needed to compensate for the harmful effect of disruption. Constraints disadvantaged families face emerge not just from having fewer resources in a single domain but also from various forms of disadvantage that might interact with each other and compound over the life course and across generations (Manduca and Sampson 2019). The cumulative advantage framework suggests that an initial favorable socioeconomic position produces further relative gains, widening gaps over time, a phenomenon known as the Matthew effect (DiPrete and Eirich 2006; Merton and Merton 1968). Although employment, family stability, and good health can accumulate advantages, disruptions in these domains may deplete families of socioeconomic resources and result in accumulated disadvantage for parents and their children (Evans, Li, and Whipple 2013; Maroto 2015; Western et al. 2012). Disruptive events such as divorce, job loss, and health shocks are more likely to be experienced jointly by disadvantaged families and can precipitate a period of economic insecurity and impact children’s developmental and socioeconomic trajectories (Maroto 2015; McCloud and Dwyer 2011; Renzulli and Barr 2017). For example, decreased parental psychological health resulting from disruption can inhibit attention and emotional warmth toward children or even lead to erratic or punitive parenting practices (Conger, Conger, and Elder 1997; Elder 1974; Kessler, Turner, and House 1989; McLeod and Shanahan 1993; McLoyd 1998; McLoyd et al. 1994; McLoyd and Wilson 1990). Parents subject to disruptive events may also model and communicate despair to their children, such that children imitate the behavior (McLoyd and Wilson 1990). Decreased social involvement resulting from household disruption and residential mobility can disrupt children’s networks, which can affect their social capital and socioeconomic status (Astone and McLanahan 1994; Coleman 1988, 1990; Furstenberg et al. 1999; Haveman, Wolfe, and Spaulding 1991; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2000; McLanahan 1983; Sampson, Morenoff, and Earls 1999; Sandefur and Laumann 1998). A cumulation of disruptive events can also result in high allostatic load, that is, “wear and tear” of the body emerging from repeated exposure to multiple stressors such as neighborhood violence, housing instability, or economic precarity (Evans 2003; McEwen and Stellar 1993). Allostatic load may result in a heavier morbidity burden and strained mental health. The stress response triggered by repeated harmful exposures could also act as a predisposing factor for the influence of new exposures. As a result, subsequent adverse events cause more damage to those already debilitated by long-term multidimensional disadvantage (McEwen and McEwen 2017). For example, disadvantaged children are more likely to suffer from mental health issues from cumulative exposure to harsh or dangerous conditions, which could reduce their ability to cope with exposure to a novel disruptive event (Currie et al. 2010; Jans, Johansson, and Nilsson 2018). Socioeconomic resources do not unambiguously compensate for disruption, however. Low-income families may be less vulnerable to the economic loss from disruptive events simply because they have less to lose in terms of economic well-being. This kind of floor effect is likely to be relevant for outcomes, such as college graduation, that are rarely achieved by low-income children even in the absence of disruption (Jackson and Holzman 2020). For example, research suggests that the income loss following parental divorce does not affect the probability that low-income children graduate from college given that their baseline chances of graduation are so low (Bernardi and Boertien 2016; Bernardi and Radl 2014; Kalmijn 2010). Families’ socioeconomic resources also correlate with how normative and predictable disruptive events are for different groups. As we discuss in the next section, the normativity of disruptive events could induce variation in their impact in ways that depart and might even offset variation predicted by socioeconomic resources. ### Contextual Factors: Normativity and Predictability of Disruptive Events The impact of disruptive events on individuals and families may also depend on the social context, particularly on how prevalent and normative a disruptive event is in a particular social setting. The literature offers many examples. Becoming unemployed might be less detrimental for the psychological well-being of parents and children as the aggregate-level unemployment rate increases (Brand and Simon-Thomas 2014; Clark 2003). The loss of social connections following divorce is attenuated in regions where divorce is more accepted (Kalmijn and Uunk 2007). Similarly, the negative effect of a nonmarital birth on infant health declines as nonmarital fertility becomes more normative over time and across place (Torche and Abufhele 2021), and the impact of child death on intimate partner violence against the mother is more severe for mothers living in regions where this experience is uncommon (Weitzman and Smith-Greenaway 2020). These diverse findings suggest a powerful contextual mechanism: as a negatively assessed event becomes more prevalent and normative in society, the stigma associated with it becomes less severe because the event represents a smaller deviation from the social norm. Declining stigmatization will reduce negative social responses such as labeling, isolation, status loss and discrimination and will ease the harm these responses cause to individual identity and self-worth (Burke 1991; Hatzenbuehler, Phelan, and Link 2013; Link and Phelan 2001). The social normativity of disruptive events is closely associated with the likelihood that families or individuals experience them. For example, unemployment is likely more accepted and normative in communities where the possibility of becoming unemployed is high (Wilson 1996). Given the high level of network homophily (people who share networks are similar across race, age, SES, and other characteristics) and segregation in social networks, those unlikely to experience disruptive events are generally part of social networks where these events are non-normative. Individuals with a low likelihood of disruption may experience disruptive events as an unexpected and unpredictable shock when they occur and may lack resources to cope with them. By contrast, people who are likely to experience adverse circumstances may be forced to develop protective mechanisms—a process variedly termed habituation, adaptation, and resilience—which could reduce their vulnerability to novel shocks (Feder, Nestler, and Charney 2009; Gump and Matthews 1999). For example, research has suggested that job loss is not as consequential for psychological well-being among those accustomed to economic precarity as those accustomed to stability (Brand 2015; Brand and Simon-Thomas 2014). In this issue, Emily Rauscher and Xinyan Cao find the noxious impact of air pollution during pregnancy on infant health to be stronger among highly educated mothers than among those with less schooling. This pattern, the authors suggest, might emerge from limited coping mechanisms due to limited exposure among advantaged populations. Also in this issue, Stefanie DeLuca, Nicholas Papageorge, and Joseph Boselovic describe how adversity is part of the fabric of the lives of disadvantaged youth in some social settings. As youth grow accustomed to disruptive events, these exposures become less remarkable and impactful on their life outcomes. This is not to say that stress and anxiety are less prevalent among those with high levels of economic insecurity. In fact, disadvantaged populations tend to have higher levels of psychological distress. Instead, it is to say that groups with a high likelihood of disruption might develop coping mechanisms that reduce their reactivity to novel stressors (Aneshensel 1992; George 1993). Even if the normativity of disruptive events is closely associated with the likelihood that individuals experience them, the conceptual distinction between the normativity of events and likelihood of their occurrence is important because it points at two distinct mechanisms. Stigmatization resulting from violating a social norm is a collective response by others. In contrast, the likelihood of experiencing a disruptive event is an individual-level attribute that shapes the expectation of disruption and the availability of coping mechanisms. A related contextual factor likely to shape the effect of disruption on individual outcomes are institutions and policies intended to protect individuals from risks. For example, the probability of falling into poverty as a result of job loss and unemployment varies dramatically across countries depending on welfare state generosity (Brady, Finnigan, and Hübgen 2017), and the consequences of unemployment for mental and physical health depend on the availability of unemployment benefits (Cylus, Glymour, and Avendano 2015; Rodriguez, Lasch, and Mead 1997). In this issue, Alcaino and Argote highlight the relevance of political leadership as a mediator of environmental exposures on children’s educational outcomes. They find that the decline in children’s test scores was deeper and more persistent after a devastating earthquake in Chile in municipalities with first-term mayors than those with reelected mayors, highlighting the relevance of political experience in the context of natural disasters. Policies intended to alleviate the negative impact of disruptive events on well-being are intimately connected to the normativity of such events. For example, the generosity of unemployment insurance is jointly determined with the extent to which unemployment is seen as breaking a social norm and stigmatized across places (Lindbeck, Nyberg, and Weibull 1999) and the generosity of unemployment benefits critically depends on how stigmatized unemployment is in different localities (Stutzer and Lalive 2004). Put simply, policies and institutions reflect normative agreements and those agreements in turn shape policy arrangements. Even though the rollout of specific policies can sometimes be treated as exogenous—for example, when a policy is implemented in some locations earlier than other locations due to arbitrary factors—in general normative and policy contexts are mutually constitutive. The normativity-predictability approach and the resource disparities approach yield opposing predictions about the socioeconomic stratification of the impact of disruption. The resource disparities approach predicts that disadvantaged populations will experience more harmful and persistent consequences from disruption given their lack of compensatory resources and greater vulnerability to shocks. In contrast, the normativity and predictability approaches suggest that micro-level events such as divorce and unemployment will take a larger toll among advantaged groups because they are more likely to violate deep-seated social norms and to be experienced as unexpected shocks by highly resourced groups. Most likely, both mechanisms will be at play in shaping heterogeneity in the impact of micro-level disruptive events such as job loss or divorce. That is, effect heterogeneity will be a net result of forces that might operate in different directions and might even offset each other. The articles in this issue reflect both patterns. ## METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK TO ASSESS VARIATION IN THE EFFECTS OF DISRUPTION Assessing variation in the effect of disruptive events among children is a challenging methodological task. Researchers face standard methodological challenges in identifying and estimating causal effects at the aggregate level, including confounding and reverse causality. Additionally, researchers face common methodological issues that become more acute when assessing heterogeneity, including model specification (how to select the characteristics that demonstrate heterogeneity), sample size (power-to-detect effects across subgroups of the population), and different degrees of confounding across diverse axes of heterogeneity. A main risk to the identification of causal effects is confounding, that is, the possibility that the effect attributed to disruption (the treatment) is actually due to unobserved factors correlated with but distinct from disruption. Children likely to experience disruptive events might be different from others in terms of their socioeconomic resources, personality factors, family relationships, and other characteristics. If these characteristics are not accounted for, researchers could mistakenly attribute the effect of these unobserved factors to the disruptive event, a problem variously called confounding, selection bias, non-ignorability, and omitted variable bias. Researchers are often concerned that they overestimate the true effect of disruption because the factors that cause some children to experience disruption may also limit their academic achievement, health, well-being, and other outcomes. However, another concerning source of selection bias could occur if the parents of children likely to be most harmed by an event make the strongest attempts to reduce their children’s chances of experiencing it (that is, “selection on gains,” see Heckman, Schmierer, and Urzua 2010). For example, parents who think their children will be harmed by their divorce may be more likely to seek alternatives such as counseling than parents who think their children will be less affected. If these parents are correct in their assessment, then we will not observe the most harmful consequences of divorce because a selected group of parents refrained from marital dissolution. As a result, the estimated effect of divorce on children will be an underestimate of its true causal effect, and of its variation. If researchers were able to measure parents’ expectations about the harm that divorce would cause on their children and adjust for this factor in their statistical models, they would be able to address the issue. Unfortunately, it is usually impossible for researchers to observe all sources of possible selection bias in the associations they are interested in. To reduce the risk of confounding, recent studies of the impact of disruption deploy standard econometric tools, including adjustment for covariates, regression discontinuity, difference-in-differences, fixed effects, and instrumental variables. For example, many types of natural disasters provide “natural experiments” whose impact does not precisely follow administrative borders or residential segregation based on socioeconomic status and other household characteristics. Similarly, researchers interested in the effect of parental job loss on children’s outcomes might restrict attention to parents who lost jobs due to large-scale business closures, which reduce selection into job loss by individual characteristics. Alternatively, researchers may use a fixed-effects approach to compare children’s outcomes before and after their parents lose jobs. By relying on within-individual change over time, this approach accounts for sources of unobserved selectivity of parents into job loss that do not change over time, providing a plausible causal strategy to assess the impact on children. Correctly estimating an average causal effect across the population is only the first step for researchers interested in effect heterogeneity. Additionally, researchers require a framework to select domains of heterogeneity (and negate others), an analysis of power-to-detect effects across subgroups, and an assessment of whether the research design continues to be valid for each subgroup. Finally, scholars should be mindful as to whether differential effects reflect heterogeneity in treatment effects rather than heterogeneous treatments. In what follows we discuss these issues in turn. The selection of domains of heterogeneity—for example, parental income, education, race and ethnicity, among others—is often marked by limited clarity. Many studies rely on a combination of vaguely conjured theory and common conventions in the literature to justify the selection of certain axes of heterogeneity (and the implicit nonselection of other candidate domains). By far the most common domain considered by researchers is measures of socioeconomic status, such as parental income and education; yet other demographic measurements may be included as well, such as race-ethnicity, age of exposure, and gender. These analyses often operate under the implicit assumption that variation in effects is driven by a resource disparities theoretical framework. Some scholars have also explored how effects vary by the likelihood or “propensity” of experiencing disruptive events (Brand et al. 2019b; Brand and Simon-Thomas 2014; Turney 2017). Propensity-stratified models are particularly well suited for testing whether individuals who are more or less likely to experience events suffer larger effects (Brand and Simon Thomas 2013; Xie et al. 2012). Others have considered how effects vary across social contexts. For example, some studies of job displacement consider how the effect varies by local economic contexts and test the hypothesis that job loss might be less harmful when unemployment is widespread because it represents a smaller violation of social norms (Brand 2015; Clark 2003; Torche and Daviss 2022). These analyses may suggest patterns that support the normativity and predictability theoretical frameworks. Selection of common domains, for example, by socioeconomic status or race, raises additional questions of what heterogeneity findings we are failing to uncover and how to interpret the effects we estimate. Examining family socioeconomic status as a key domain of heterogeneity may not sufficiently narrow the set of potential mechanisms driving that heterogeneity. For example, measures of parental education might capture differences in family economic resources but could also capture differences in children’s access to information, social networks, cultural resources, or a combination of these assets. This is because the measure used is correlated with many other measures that are not used (or collected) and because most measures are not sharp enough to adjudicate between different mechanisms, such as types of resources or preferences. These challenges require that scholars make explicit the theoretical foundations of the axis of heterogeneity examined. One promising way to proceed is provided by the logic of preregistration, in which research hypotheses are articulated and disclosed before conducting the empirical research and additional hypotheses that emerge during the research process are discussed (Freese and Peterson 2020; Manago 2023). Although hypothesis preregistration is a promising approach, in practice researchers often explore their data to determine which subgroups have the largest effect estimates and report the effect estimates of those that do (leading to *p*-hacking). If researchers select which interactions to report as a result of exploratory analyses, and do not draw on cross-validation procedures or multiple-testing adjustments, they are likely to incorrectly reject a true null hypothesis. Such ad hoc searches for responsive subgroups may in other words reflect noise within the data rather than true response variation and result in misleading conclusions. Undocumented manual specification search procedures also lack transparency and reproducibility (Freese and Peterson 2020). Still, it may be difficult to know ex ante the subgroups most affected by disruptive events. An emerging methodological approach to study effect heterogeneity is to use tools from machine learning to uncover sets of factors and interactions between factors that account for effect variation rather than focusing on a narrow set of specified modifiers. Typically, this approach is supervised by the researcher by both choosing a specific method or set of methods for estimation and specifying the features (covariates) that the algorithm can use (and again disallowing others). In this sense, the machine learning approach does not amount to pure and unconstrained discovery. It provides a strategy to reduce arbitrariness in the axes of heterogeneity considered, reducing the influence of the researchers’ priors. Potential axes of heterogeneity may also be most informative when considered jointly, in complex and nonlinear ways (such as low-income children who report low social control). These approaches also reduce arbitrariness in researcher-specified functional forms estimated in the analysis, in that it is generally unclear which of the large number of possible covariate thresholds (such as parental income values) and interactions are best to consider. Machine learning has been rapidly gaining recognition in the social sciences for both prediction tasks and the possibility of discovery through integration with causal inference methods (Athey and Imbens 2019; Brand, Zhou, and Xie 2023; Lundberg, Brand, and Jeon 2022; Molina and Garip 2019; Wager and Athey 2018). Both emerging applications and continuing developments use these methods (Brand et al. 2021; Yu et al. 2021). An additional challenge for researchers interested in heterogeneity in the effects of disruption is that the confounding problem could be worse for some subpopulations than for others (Zhou and Xie 2019). An observed pattern of variation in the effects of disruptive events could be due to variation in unobserved selection into those circumstances. For example, results may suggest that White workers are more negatively harmed by job displacement than Black workers. Yet if White workers are generally less likely to lose jobs than Black workers, displaced White workers may have unobserved characteristics that render them more negatively selected than their Black counterparts. Our analyses may not fully equalize some measure, such as unequal work conditions, for White and Black displaced workers. If so, our estimates of displacement effects for White workers could be larger than for Black workers not because Whites are harmed more by displacement, but because they were more negatively selected into displacement in the first place. Even when using plant-closing analyses of job loss, it could be that plant closings that displace White workers are in different industries, on average, than plant closings that displace Black workers because of racial segregation by occupation and industry. Consequently, outcome differences from displacement that appear to be differential by race could instead reflect industry-based variation in unemployment duration, vacancies, starting wages, and other factors. Likewise, research focusing on intent-to-treat estimates, such as place and time demarcated measures of exposure (such as air pollution or other environmental factors) face the challenge that first-stage relationships between the distal exposure and intermediate outcome may vary by subgroup (if, for example, more advantaged groups are able to invest in household filtering systems to reduce domestic exposure to contaminants). Another way of describing the challenge is that the compliers may vary by important measured and unmeasured characteristics. Researchers should attend to differential selection in stratified effect estimates, be mindful of the potential for heterogeneity at various “steps” of the process between distal exposures and outcomes, and use sensitivity analyses of subgroups effects (Hainmueller, Mummolo, and Xu 2019). In this issue, Martha Bailey, Peter Lin, A. R. Shariq Mohammed, and Alexa Prettyman (2024) discuss the likelihood that the meaning of the Great Depression differed by place due to the mix of agricultural and industrial sectors in the local area prior to this macroeconomic event; the authors discuss their results in the context of considering whether the treatment of the Great Depression includes effect heterogeneity, treatment heterogeneity, or (most likely) both. Scholars may also try to elucidate patterns of effect heterogeneity by focusing on theoretical mechanisms that link disruptive events to children’s outcomes. For example, a study examining the impact of prenatal exposure to local homicides on infant health hypothesized that local violence shapes infant health by inducing a change in the use of prenatal care by mothers differently depending on the mother’s level of schooling (Torche and Villarreal 2014). Testing this kind of mediation process is challenging because even if the initial exposure (local homicides in this example) might be considered exogenous, behavioral responses to it (use of prenatal care) are not. In another example, Jennie Brand and her colleagues (2019b) considered the role of parental income and children’s psychological well-being after parental divorce as mechanisms linking divorce to children’s educational attainment. The causal mediation literature has emphasized careful attention to estimating valid mediating effects using a causal framework and laying out key identifying assumptions (Imai et al. 2011; VanderWeele 2016). That is, to define path-specific effects of disruptive events, we must address the possibility of confounding not only in the event-outcome relationship, but also in the event-mediator and mediator-outcome relationships. Recent work also applies flexible machine learning methods to uncover causal direct and indirect effects (Zhou and Yamamoto 2023). Qualitative studies can also enhance our understanding of the complex pathways by which disruption impacts family well-being. Relying on individuals’ accounts of the experience of disruption, and the rationale for any behavioral responses, studies based on interviews or ethnographic observations can explicate mechanisms accounting for disparities in the effect of disruption unobserved by quantitative approaches. For example, qualitative studies on the impact of unemployment uncover the guilt, shame, and isolation it produces among affected workers (Newman 1998) and the extent to which the experience and responses to unemployment vary by gender and socioeconomic standing (Damaske 2021; Rao 2020). In this issue, DeLuca, Papageorge, and Boselovic (2024) use semi-structured interviews to explore disruption and adversity among low-income Black youth in high-poverty neighborhoods. They describe variation in how these disadvantaged youth responded to disruptive events, attending to the resources and relationships that conditioned their heterogeneous response. Also in this issue, Kristin Turney, Amy Liu, and Estéfani Marín (2024) undertake an in-depth interview study to probe rich life course histories of exposure to paternal incarceration to show that children’s responses of “stepping into” new responsibilities following a paternal incarceration event are strongly shaped by previous experiences with paternal incarceration. Finally, patterns of variation in the observed effect of the treatment may reflect variation in the treatment condition itself. For instance, as Nazar Khalid, Jere Behrman, Emily Hannum, and Amrit Thapa (2024) show in this issue, severe floods in India have a stronger impact on the educational outcomes of children from marginalized communities—those from low socioeconomic status and lower caste. This pattern largely emerges because destruction and dislocation following the flood is more severe in disadvantaged communities, and only secondarily because the effect given exposure is stronger among disadvantaged children. In another example in this issue, Turney, Liu, and Marín show that children whose parents are unlikely to be incarcerated may experience worse outcomes from parental incarceration than those whose parents were more likely to experience this event. Yet the authors suggest that this pattern may reflect different lengths of parental incarceration (that is, different treatment conditions). In all these cases, findings of effect heterogeneity across groups reflect exposure to different treatments rather than variation in the effect of the same exposure. This issue has been widely recognized in the causal inference literature as a violation of the critical requirement that there cannot be multiple versions of the same treatment (Rubin 1980, 1986). Restricting inference to a single version of the treatment is a challenging task. Researchers interested in effect heterogeneity should continue to consider strategies to address this issue (see, for example, VanderWeele and Hernan 2013). ## THE IMPACT OF DISRUPTIVE EVENTS ACROSS DOMAINS We now turn to a review of the growing literature examining the impact of disruptive events on families and children. We discuss disruptions in the following domains: economic (job loss, recession), household and family (divorce, incarceration), education (school closures), health (illness, death), and environmental (floods, earthquakes). These domains were selected for multiple reasons. First, they identify exposures with a large, documented impact on children’s life chances. Second, a robust body of evidence examining patterns and sources of heterogeneity exists in each of them. Third, in all these cases, we can distinguish micro-level events (for example, parental job loss) from macro-level events (for example, recessions), gaining theoretical insight on the plausibility of the two theoretical frameworks we have outlined. ### Economic Disruptions We characterize economic disruptions as events that affect the economic standing of families. They can be micro events, such as job loss, bankruptcy, eviction, and foreclosure, or macro events affecting larger populations, such as economic recessions. These events generally affect children’s parents or caregivers and then children as families adjust to new economic realities. Scholars have studied variation in the effects of these events along various axes, such as socioeconomic status indicators, race, and the probability that disruption occurs. Here we discuss some of the main patterns in the literature and how they fit into broader theoretical paradigms and methodological considerations. #### Job Loss Job loss (also known as job displacement) is a disruptive and often unexpected life event. Macroeconomic conditions and individual characteristics influence the likelihood of workers experiencing displacement, such as technological change, foreign trade, employment reorganization, and macroeconomic downturn (Farber 2010; Farley 1996; Kalleberg 2000, 2009). Displacement is higher during economic downturns. Less-educated workers and workers in jobs with low status and low tenure have a high risk of displacement (Brand 2006, 2015; Farber 1997, 2010). However, rates of job loss have increased for more advantaged groups (Farber 2011). Job loss typically leads to a period of unemployment and lower lifetime earnings (Brand 2015; Couch and Placzek 2010a; Couch, Jolly, and Placzek 2011; Davis and von Wachter 2012; Fallick 1996; Farber 2005; Kletzer 1998; Podgursky and Swaim 1987; Ruhm 1991). Some estimates suggest an immediate loss of about 30 percent of earnings and as much as a 20 percent cumulative reduction in earnings twenty years after the job loss event (Couch and Placzek 2010b; Davis and von Wachter 2012; von Wachter 2010). Job loss can also lead to bankruptcy or home loss by foreclosure or eviction (Dwyer 2018; Western et al. 2012). These losses associated with displacement present a considerable economic shock to families with children. A decrease in parental economic resources may restrict the ability to purchase goods critical for child development, such as schooling, housing, food, and cognitively enriching learning environments. Increases in job instability among displaced workers are also common, instigating continuing economic and social disruptions for families (von Wachter 2010). Job loss disrupts not just economic and work conditions, but also the structure of daily life, psychological well-being, and family and social relationships (Brand 2015; Catalano et al. 2011; Brand and Burgard 2008; Deb et al. 2011; House 1987; Jahoda 1981, 1982; Paul and Moser 2009; Pearlin et al. 1981). The economic, psychological, and social effects of displacement impact family well-being and consequently children’s social-psychological, educational, and socioeconomic outcomes (Brand and Simon-Thomas 2014; Johnson, Kalil, and Dunifon 2012; Kalil and Ziol-Guest 2005, 2008; Oreopoulos, Page, and Stevens 2008; Page, Stevens, and Lindo 2009). Job loss can also lead to additional disruptions to households, such as divorce or separation, which affect children’s well-being, as described more fully later. Research has shown that the effects of job loss vary by worker characteristics and social and economic context. Although economic losses are greater for more disadvantaged workers with limited human capital, some of the social and psychological consequences can be worse for more advantaged workers and their families who are less likely to experience disruptive events (Brand 2015). Although economic adversity is more normative among more disadvantaged families, displacement and socioeconomic decline may instigate an acute sense of deprivation among more advantaged families whose peers tend to be likewise advantaged and for whom displacement is a considerable shock (Brand and Simon-Thomas 2014; Clark, Georgellis, and Sanfey 2001; Dooley, Prause, and Ham-Rowbottom 2000). Brand and Juli Simon-Thomas (2014), for example, find the largest effects of job loss among children whose mothers had a low likelihood of displacement. This finding supports the social normativity and predictability framework. Similarly, studies suggest that though the effects of displacement on economic well-being are worse in high unemployment contexts (von Wachter 2010), the effects on physical and mental health are worse in low unemployment contexts (Clark 2003; Cohn 1978; Platt and Kreitman 1984; Torche and Daviss 2022; Turner 1995). This pattern is consistent with the theoretical expectation that when unemployment becomes normative, the stigma and shame associated with losing one’s job decreases. Rich qualitative work on contexts of concentrated disadvantage also finds that in communities where “work disappears,” unemployment loses its social stigma (Wilson 1996). In this issue, Anna Baranowska-Rataj, Björn Högberg, and Jonas Voßemer (2024) consider whether parental job losses lead to worse children’s health outcomes at birth when unemployment in Sweden is higher. They find little evidence that job loss affects children’s birth outcomes, and no evidence of heterogeneity across areas with different rates of unemployment. Compared with findings from the United States (Torche and Daviss 2022), this finding may suggest cross-national heterogeneity: the effect of job loss may not be as severe in a context like Sweden given the strong role of the Swedish welfare state in protecting families from material hardship and supporting the transition to reemployment in the event of displacement (Bambra and Eikemo 2018). #### Economic Recession Economic recessions and downturns differ from job loss in that they are macro-level events affecting large populations at the national or local levels. In the case of economic recessions, most children in exposed communities are affected, not just those whose parents have lost jobs (Gassman-Pines, Gibson-Davis, and Ananat 2015). Economic downturns negatively affect children’s psychological health and education (Ananat, Gassman-Pines, and Gibson-Davis 2011; Gassman-Pines, Gibson-Davis, and Ananat 2015) and their later outcomes (Noghanibehambari and Fletcher 2023; Schmitz and Duque 2022). Both displaced workers and continuously employed parents may experience earnings loss and psychological distress during economic downturns. Anna Gassman-Pines, Christina Gibson-Davis, and Elizabeth Ananat (2015) suggest that state-level economic contexts could influence how families are affected by downturn. In this issue, Bailey and colleagues consider the effects of the Great Depression on children’s mobility. The authors find large differences by child gender, where the downturn had little effect on sons’ mobility experiences but reduced daughters’ intergenerational mobility outcomes and interpret these effects to reflect gendered differences in educational and occupational opportunities during the early twentieth century. The authors’ focus aligns with the described resource disparities framework as a potential source of heterogeneity in responses to macro events, such as the Great Depression. That is, in examining social mobility, the authors’ (at least implicit) focus on whether children from low-resource households are differently affected than children from high-resource households in attaining high status as adults. However, the finding of no social mobility differences for sons who were exposed to different levels of macroeconomic downturn from the Great Depression suggests that the impact of changing macroeconomic conditions on the socioeconomic outcomes of these sons did not vary by their family background. #### Home Loss Home loss via foreclosure or eviction can have a significant impact on family well-being. Foreclosure is associated with declines in mental health and increases in suicide, especially for White men (Downing 2016; Fowler et al. 2015; Houle and Light 2017), increased substance use (Burgard, Seefeldt, and Zelner 2012), and financial instability (Brevoort and Cooper 2013; Diamond, Guren, and Tan 2020), which can significantly affect family and child well-being. Rebecca Diamond, Adam Guren, and Rose Tan (2020) suggest that those on the margin of foreclosure, who tend to be families from more affluent neighborhoods, experience larger effects of foreclosure on the likelihood of divorce and mobility than families residing in less affluent neighborhoods. Because those on the margin of foreclosure have a relatively low likelihood of home loss, this finding supports the social normativity and predictability framework. Home loss via eviction is associated with decreased psychological well-being (Desmond and Kimbro 2015; Fowler et al. 2015; McLaughlin et al. 2012), worse physical health (Hoke and Boen 2021; Leifheit et al. 2020; Nande et al. 2021), downward economic mobility (Desmond and Gershenson 2016), and homelessness (Rutan and Desmond 2021). Eviction disproportionately affects Black and Latino renters, especially Black women (Desmond 2012; Hepburn, Louis, and Desmond 2020), and those who live in areas with high rent burdens and low investment in welfare (Thomas et al. 2019). Heterogeneity in the effect of eviction is understudied. However, one study finds that Hispanic households were more likely to move again after eviction than other households (Desmond, Gershenson, and Kiviat 2015). ### Household Disruptions A large literature has established that family and household disruption decrease household income and economic security and influence the well-being and attainment of children. Here we focus on changes in family and household configuration, including parental divorce and separation and parental incarceration. #### Divorce, Separation, and Household Change A large literature suggests that parental divorce decreases children’s socioemotional well-being and limits their educational attainment (Amato 2000; Brand et al. 2019a, 2019b; Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale, and McRae 1998; McLanahan, Tach, and Schneider 2013; Fletcher and Sindelar 2012). With the loss of a parent in the household, typically fathers, mothers generally have fewer economic resources, which can negatively affect children’s attainment. Moreover, relationship transitions occur more frequently following parental divorce, and such instability disrupts children’s lives (Lee and McLanahan 2015). Research has found that parental divorce and other changes in family structure have heterogeneous effects, with the largest effects observed for advantaged children. Studies suggest larger effects for children with more educated parents than children with less-educated parents (Bernardi and Boertien 2016; Bernardi and Radl 2014; Martin 2012). Other studies find larger effects for White children than for non-White children (Brand et al. 2019b; Lee and McLanahan 2015; Perkins 2019; Wu and Thomson 2001). Brand and her colleagues (2019a) find that parental divorce resulted in lower educational attainment among children whose parents had a low likelihood of divorce but no effect among their counterparts with a higher probability of divorce. They argue that children of unstable marriages, who face many social disadvantages over childhood, anticipate or otherwise adapt to the dissolution of their parents’ marriage. By contrast, divorce is an unexpected shock for more advantaged children with relatively fewer disruptive family circumstances. Additionally, the stronger adverse effects among advantaged groups may be partly due to the change in available resources before and after divorce: children from high-SES backgrounds experience a marked economic decline after a divorce. A high prevalence of family and socioeconomic instability among children of color, low-SES children, and children with a high expectation of family instability renders an additional disruptive family transition less impactful, and indeed, less disruptive (Cross 2020; Harvey and Fine 2011). These findings support the social normativity and predictability theoretical framework. That is, response to parental divorce is greater for these more advantaged families because family disruption is less expected and constitutes a more stigmatizing deviation from norms in their social milieu. In this issue, Kristin Perkins (2024) assesses heterogeneous effects of household change involving extended families and nonrelatives on Black children’s outcomes. Whereas prior research finds small or insignificant effects of household disruption on educational attainment for Black children, she finds that the effects are heterogeneous: Black children with a low propensity for disruption experience larger effects of household change on education than those with a high propensity for disruption. The finding also aligns with research suggesting the importance of social normativity and expectations of disruption but in this case among a population previously assumed to experience homogenous responses. Perkins’s findings speak to the importance of clearly defining the treatment condition in studies of household disruption as well as the complex processes of response variation among children. Variation in the effect of disruptive events on individuals and families could also emerge from interactions between macro- and micro-level exposures. For example, as the prevalence of divorce in sub-Saharan Africa regions increases, parental divorce effects on children’s health decreases (Smith-Greenaway and Clark 2017). This effect holds even for children who lived in higher SES households. Similarly, Florencia Torche and Alejandra Abufhele (2021) find that being born to unmarried parents causes worse infant health in contexts where most births occur within marriage. By contrast, after one accounts for socioeconomic differences between married and unmarried parents, being born to unmarried parents has limited or no effect in settings where nonmarital fertility is prevalent. These studies suggest that in contexts where events such as experiencing a marital disruption or having a child out of wedlock are unusual and non-normative, they can result in stigmatization, isolation, and depletion of resources with negative consequences for children. #### Incarceration The literature on parental incarceration reveals negative effects on children’s academic achievement, socioemotional outcomes, and juvenile delinquency driven by multiple mechanisms, including physical and emotional absence, family strain, socioeconomic decline, stigma, and shame (Eddy and Poehlman 2012; Foster and Hagan 2015; Johnson and Easterling 2012; Turney and Wildeman 2013). Some research indicates that the consequences of parental incarceration depend on the likelihood of experiencing it. Children whose parents were less likely to be incarcerated experienced greater negative effects on educational attainment and well-being (Turney 2017). Similarly, children least likely to experience maternal incarceration experienced increased internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors and increased early juvenile delinquency (Turney and Wildeman 2015). The effects of parental incarceration also vary by contextual-level factors, including the normativity of the event at the neighborhood level. Scholars have shown weaker associations between parental incarceration and the likelihood that children live in disadvantaged neighborhoods as adults in contexts where parental incarceration is more prevalent (Finkeldey and Dennison 2020). In this issue, Turney and her coauthors find that parental incarceration alters children’s emotional well-being and instrumental and financial responsibilities. However, their in-depth interview data also reveal that children vary in their response, with some children carrying considerable burden and others stepping away from responsibilities or even expressing relief when a father is incarcerated. ### Educational Disruptions Educational disruptions involve changes in the schooling experienced by children, emerging from partially expected events such as students’ school transfers and absenteeism and from unexpected events such as school closures. #### School Transfers Student mobility across schools—that is, students changing schools throughout their educational career—is a widespread phenomenon with consequences for learning. The reasons for school transfers are diverse and include unplanned moves usually made in response to another disruptive event in the family and planned moves made to achieve a desired end such as a better residential situation.1 Regardless of the reason, school transfers could have negative effects on children’s educational outcomes due to disruption of learning environments, loss of social networks, and the need to adapt to new curriculums and teaching styles. School mobility could also impose negative externalities for nonmovers by altering the composition of peer groups, demanding resources that otherwise could be devoted to instruction, and inducing disruption in the classroom (Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin 2004; Raudenbush, Jean, and Art 2011; Rumberger et al. 1999). Observational studies show that changing schools is usually associated with worse educational outcomes, including test scores, grade retention, and school dropout (Welsh 2017). In many cases, this negative association declines significantly or disappears after controlling for students’ characteristics and achievement (Alexander, Entwisle, and Dauber 1996; Grigg 2012; Lleras and McKillip 2017; Strand 2002; Temple and Reynolds 1999). This suggests that students who are already struggling are more likely to move but that mobility itself might not have a separate negative impact. Changing schools is much more prevalent among disadvantaged students, including racial and ethnic minority, low-income, and immigrant children residing in urban areas (Alexander, Entwisle, and Dauber 1996; Grigg 2012; Lleras and McKillip 2017; Strand 2002). Given their lower likelihood of changing schools, advantaged children may experience a larger impact of school transfers if it is more of an unexpected shock, particularly if they are moving to schools with fewer resources. Conversely, the potential negative impact of moving could be outweighed by transferring to a higher quality school among disadvantaged students. Research on the consequences of school mobility, however, has not systematically explored effect heterogeneity. #### School Closures The impact of school closures has gained importance in recent years given the widespread closures during the COVID pandemic. To prevent the spread of the virus, most governments worldwide closed schools for several weeks or months in the spring of 2020. After the initial reopening, additional waves of closures occurred in late 2020 and 2021. Studies have examined the impact of COVID-related school closures on students’ educational outcomes around the world, largely with a focus on test scores. Most studies show a substantial negative effect with an average magnitude of approximately 0.1 standard deviations in both math and reading scores (Hammerstein et al. 2021; König and Frey 2022; Zierer 2021). Given that COVID-related school closures were so widespread, we expect patterns of heterogeneity to align with a resource disparities framework rather than a normativity framework. Indeed, the literature consistently anticipated greater losses among students from low-income families, whose parents had low levels of schooling and who lived in poor neighborhoods (Agostinelli et al. 2020; Azevedo et al. 2020; Di Pietro et al. 2020; Fuchs-Schündeln et al. 2020; Kaffenberger 2021; Kuhfeld et al. 2020). Empirical analyses are consistent with these predictions about unequal effects, confirming that socioeconomically disadvantaged students experienced greater learning losses than their more advantaged peers. For example, Per Engzell, Arun Frey, and Mark Verhagen (2021) find learning losses up to 60 percent greater for children with parents with low levels of schooling than for more advantaged students in the Netherlands. Given that the Netherlands features low levels of income inequality and virtually universal broadband connectivity, this finding might provide a lower bound estimate of the disparities in the impact of school closures on learning. Similarly, Joana Maldonado and Kristof De Witte (2022) find substantial losses among students in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged schools in Belgium but no decline among children in advantaged schools. Vladimir Kogan and Stéphane Lavertu (2021) report postpandemic declines in test scores in Ohio that were more pronounced among racial minorities and economically disadvantaged groups. Rebecca Jack and her colleagues (2023) find that remote learning was more detrimental for districts with larger populations of Black students. To assess heterogeneity in the effects of school closures, most studies focused on the differential ability of families to transition to online education, including differential access to remote instruction, differential parental responses, and loss of beneficial peer effects among disadvantaged groups. Families differ in their digital connectivity as well as ability to use technology for learning purposes. An early pandemic Education Trust (2020) survey reported that nearly 50 percent of low-income families and 42 percent of families of color reported lacking enough devices at home to access distance learning. In the United States in 2021, only 59 percent of low-income households (those earning less than $30,000 a year) owned a computer and 57 percent had access to broadband. The comparable figure for households with incomes greater than $100,000 a year were 92 and 91 percent, respectively (Vogels 2021). In addition to basic infrastructure barriers, several studies report socioeconomic disparities in time and resources devoted to at-home learning. For example, children in high-income households spent more time on home learning than those in poor families in England (Andrew et al. 2020) and socioeconomic gaps in digital learning widened in Denmark during the pandemic (Reimer et al. 2021). Similarly, the sharp increase in internet searches for online learning materials as schools closed in the United States was concentrated among households with higher income and better internet access (Bacher-Hicks, Goodman, and Mulhern 2021). These studies direct attention to a demand-side response to the COVID shock by families. Disparities have also been observed on the supply side, that is, in the responses by schools and educators to the pandemic shock. In the United States, schools serving high-poverty populations were less likely to provide online learning and reported higher proportions of students completely absent. Similarly, disadvantaged children, including minorities and those with low parental schooling, living in single parent households, and receiving free meals, spent less time on schoolwork at home (Bayrakdar and Guveli 2023). This gap was due in large part to uneven school online learning provisions. The work by Douglas Harris and colleagues (2024) in this issue focuses on high school graduation and college entry and provides additional and novel findings of heterogeneity in the impact of the pandemic. They find an increase in high school graduation that was largest for socioeconomically disadvantaged and minoritized students, but a decline in college entry, the largest occurring in two-year colleges serving larger percentages of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students. Their evidence suggests that increased high school graduation is associated with the relaxation of graduation standards, whereas instructional mode appears to be a relevant driver of two-year college entry. In sum, research on adverse effects of school closures triggered by the COVID pandemic suggests marked stratification consistent with the resource disparities approach. This process likely emerges from consecutive, cumulative forms of precarity: disadvantaged children are more likely to face connectivity and access barriers to digital education, and less likely to receive compensatory support from their parents and effective assistance from their schools. When extrapolating findings from the COVID-induced school closures, it is important to consider several ways in which the pandemic is a unique and unprecedented exposure. First, the pandemic affected the entire population rather than being a group-specific risk. It was also an unexpected occurrence completely beyond individual control. Given these attributes, differences in the normativity of the disruptive event are unlikely to play a role in accounting for effect heterogeneity. Second, COVID school closures were long term, lasting from several weeks to several months, forcing families to make lasting adjustments. Given that families had the ability to substitute in-school education with home-based learning experiences that depend on differential economic, information, and time resources, substantial inequality in effects is to be expected. To the extent that schools play an equalizing role in learning, albeit a debated assertion (see, for example, Passaretta and Skopek 2021), the transition to home-based learning is expected to contribute to inequalities in outcomes. Finally, the COVID crisis altered virtually every dimension of life and well-being, not just educational contexts. As a result, the studies reviewed here have a limited ability to identify the unequal impact of school closures as distinct from the likely unequal impact of other measures intended to curb infection, and from the direct toll of infection itself. ### Health Disruptions #### Children’s Health Shocks The evidence is strong that child health shocks have lasting impacts as people age. Children in poor households are more likely to be subject to health shocks (Currie and Stabile 2003). A common example of a health “shock” is low birth weight. Janet Currie and Rosemary Hyson (1999) consider the potential heterogeneity of birth weight on longer-term outcomes. They outline three theories on why birth weight matters and why heterogeneity by SES may be expected. First, they suggest that birth weight may shape the efficiency of child investments into later outcomes, with the implication that children in low-SES families will have worse outcomes than children in high-SES families because of higher incidence of “adverse environmental influences” (Watson et al. 1996). Second, they argue that heterogeneity is possible in behaviors and preferences between families, which shape the types or quantity of investments and inputs in children. If these behaviors and preferences are correlated with SES, we expect to then see heterogeneity in outcomes based on birth weight status of children between different families that could mimic SES differences but may not be responsive to income transfers or other social programs. Third, families stratified by SES have different levels of monetary constraints, such that low-SES families may not be able to undertake costly investments in their children that might otherwise compensate for the adverse effects of low birth weight (Becker and Tomes 1976).2 A broader literature expands the set of health shocks experienced during childhood but typically has a limited focus on heterogenous effects. ADHD has been one such expansion, where researchers have shown impacts on educational achievement and attainment (Currie et al. 2014; Currie and Stabile 2003; Fletcher and Wolfe 2008) and broader outcomes (Fletcher 2014; Fletcher and Wolfe 2009). The work by Jayanti Owens and Xinyan Cao (2024) in this issue extends this literature on childhood ADHD symptoms by considering variation in treatment and outcomes by race-ethnicity and other axes of heterogeneity. They find that heterogeneity in ADHD diagnosis varies by a complex combination of race-ethnicity and outcome domain, such that diagnosed Black children experience worse outcomes in teacher reports of school behavior, diagnosed White children experience worse outcomes in perceived school competence, and diagnosed Hispanic children experience worse outcomes in parental educational expectations. The authors present an important expansion of inquiry across domains of outcomes and axes of heterogeneity and highlight the empirical challenges of considering differential selection bias across the axes of examined heterogeneity. #### Family Health Shocks Although differential effects of children’s own health shocks on their own outcomes contribute to a growing literature, a related literature focuses on the consequences of parental (or other family members’) health shocks on children’s outcomes. Both parental death and sibling death experiences during childhood are somewhat rare in developed countries in recent times, but occur in 5 to 10 percent of the population (Fletcher et al. 2012). Studies suggest these experiences negatively affect human capital outcomes (Fletcher et al. 2012; Fletcher, Vidal-Fernandez, and Wolfe 2018). Hints of potential heterogeneity aside, in general the low prevalence of these events and reduced sample sizes limit precise estimates.3 Patterson et al. (Patterson, Verdery, and Daw 2020) show that experiencing the death of family members during childhood reduces educational attainment and the effects vary somewhat by decedent relationship, gender, and race-ethnicity. The short-term direct health effects of the COVID pandemic on children appear not to be severe, and many children have been far more protected from the virus (for example, through school closings) than adults. However, ongoing work on the pandemic suggest some initial findings related to family health shocks. The average effects appear to be large, with substantial effect heterogeneity. Ashton Verdery and his colleagues (2020) estimate the large differences in children’s exposures to deaths and health shocks of close family members, which differ enormously by socioeconomic status and race-ethnicity, mirroring the pandemic itself. ### Environmental Disruptions Environmental disruptions are macro-level events with both immediate and long-term consequences on families and communities. These sources of disruption include floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, winter storms, and wildfires. The short-term effects of environmental disruptions involve death and injury, destruction of residences and infrastructure, economic losses, and residential dislocation. In the long term, processes of return, relocation, and redevelopment also have consequences on the well-being of families and communities. The unequal impact of environmental disruptions has gained relevance in the recent past given the evidence linking climate change with severity of extreme weather events and the likelihood that these events will increase in frequency and devastation in the future (Boustan et al. 2020; Diffenbaugh et al. 2017). Research on the consequences of environmental disruptions has explicitly considered and theorized heterogeneity in both exposure and effects, linking the very notion of a disaster to prior social conditions and sources of inequality. The literature conceptualizes weather disruptions as triggering events with diverse capacity to cause harm depending on social conditions such as environmental degradation, settlement patterns, and protective systems across regions (Blaikie et al. 1994). Environmental shocks have been found to expose and magnify existing sources of socioeconomic disparities. Several factors account for the multiplicative effect of disasters on disparities, including the stratification of the consequences of the disaster, institutional and social responses that tend to benefit advantaged groups most, and differential opportunity to benefit from redevelopment opportunities (Birkmann et al. 2010; Olshansky et al. 2008; Vale and Campanella 2005). Factors such as minoritized status, gender, and age shape differential preparation for disaster and vulnerability to damage (Bolin and Kurtz 2007; Fothergill and Peek 2004; Peacock, Morrow, and Gladwin 1997; Tierney 2001). Indeed, the expectation that negative effects from natural disasters will be stronger among vulnerable groups is so widespread that Clark Gray and Valerie Mueller (2012) refer to it as the “conventional narrative” in the natural disaster field of study. Examples abound and show the diverse set of mechanisms—including differential access to social connections, insurance, political influence, ability to negotiate with bureaucratic institutions, among others—linking socioeconomic resources to unequal outcomes. Torche (2018) finds marked heterogeneity in the effect of prenatal exposure to a strong earthquake on children’s cognitive ability. Prenatal exposure to this environmental stressor had a strong negative effect on children’s cognitive performance and no effect among more advantaged families. Socioeconomic heterogeneity was likely driven by differential parental responses: advantaged families could mobilize resources to compensate for observed impacts or delays among affected children. The vulnerability approach also highlights interacting sources of vulnerability. For example, Alice Fothergill and Lori Peek (2015) document cumulative vulnerability to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina among children. Children in unstable family structures were more likely to lose their peer networks due to dislocation and to experience further housing instability than children in more stable family structures. Given that weather events are geographic, the interaction between individual-level and community-level sources of vulnerability is particularly important. For example, in part because of long-lasting housing policies, poor or minority children who have a higher likelihood of suffering from asthma (a kind of health vulnerability) tend to live in areas with higher land-surface temperatures than adjacent neighborhoods, which increases risk of asthma-inducing events (Hoffman, Shandas, and Pendleton 2020). In some instances, however, relocation forced by disasters could create beneficial opportunities especially for populations living in disadvantaged areas even if they disrupt individuals’ lives. For example, Bruce Sacerdote (2012) finds that, after a short-term decline in test scores among students who evacuated after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, their test scores improved. Gains were concentrated among students in the bottom half of the test score distribution, probably driven by benefits of moving to better schools. An important way in which disasters magnify inequalities is through recovery and redevelopment efforts (Arcaya, Raker, and Waters 2020; Bolin and Stanford 1998; Dash et al. 2007; Fothergill and Peek 2004; Tierney 2007). Disaster aid and recovery has been characterized as a Matthew effect process in which “benefits accrue to those who possess wealth and social and cultural capital, while larger proportional losses are borne by the poor and marginalized” (Tierney 2006, 210). Rebuilding is an unequal process in which the interests of disadvantaged groups are usually displaced by coalitions of business interests, powerful organizations, and political actors favoring more advantaged residents (Dash et al. 2007; Pais and Elliott 2008; Peacock, Morrow, and Gladwin 1997). Unequal development is particularly noticeable in housing recovery. Disasters tend to damage rental and low-income properties the most, and this type of housing is built more slowly than owner-occupied housing (Bolin and Stanford 1998; Fothergill and Peek 2004; Fussell 2015; Peacock et al. 2014; Zhang and Peacock 2009). Environmental and weather-related events also induce stratified migration responses. The literature offers two hypotheses about patterns of heterogeneity in post-disaster population trajectories. The “unequal displacement” hypothesis (the literature refers to it as the displacement approach only, we add unequal to emphasize predicted heterogeneity in effects) suggests that disadvantaged populations are more likely to be displaced than advantaged ones after a disaster because the poor reside in dwellings that are more likely to suffer damage (Peacock et al. 2014), have limited financial resources to rebuild, and face more difficulties accessing disaster support and assistance (Bolin and Stanford 1998; Cochrane 1975; Elliott and Pais 2006; Fothergill and Peek 2004; Hewitt 1997). In contrast, the “segmented resilience” hypothesis suggests a post-disaster *in*crease in the proportion of disadvantaged residents precisely due to their inability to leave, which “trap them in place” (Logan, Issar, and Xu 2016). Considering the impact of thirty-two hurricanes in the Gulf Coast between 1970 and 2005, John Logan, Sukriti Issar, and Zengwang Xu (2016) find that White residents and young adults were more likely to move away after hurricanes than Black residents and the elderly. Similarly, Elizabeth Fussell (2015) finds that in the case of Katrina, disadvantaged populations (minorities, elderly, low-income) were less able to evacuate due to lack of transportation, need of assistance, and different perception of risk. Interestingly, these two divergent approaches invoke the same mechanism—lack of socioeconomic resources—as the main driver of heterogeneity. Although the unequal displacement emphasizes constraints to rebuild, the segmented resilience focuses on constraints to escape harm and relocate. The divergence in expectations highlights the importance, when examining heterogeneous effects of macro-level shocks, to consider multiple conditions under which people remain in place or relocate and that socioeconomic resources might invoke different context-specific mechanisms (Elliott and Pais 2010; Fussell et al. 2017). ## CONCLUSION This introduction outlines conceptual considerations and recent findings of differential effects of disruptions during childhood across many domains of exposure, a variety of outcomes, and numerous methodological approaches. Indeed, we view heterogenous effects from disruption to be a near-universal feature of children’s trajectories across a variety of domains and time points—a feature researchers should regularly consider in their analyses. However, uncovering the potential axes of this heterogeneity is a challenging task, given that few models are precise enough to allow strong directives of domains to include and to exclude in hypothesis tests. Instead, we view much of the literature as relying on somewhat vague theories, research conventions, and ad hoc functional form assumptions to elicit sources of heterogeneity. This issue seeks to outline promising approaches and showcase new results to further motivate examination of heterogeneity. This issue, while advancing new ideas and results, is not comprehensive. We primarily focus on U.S. contexts and only briefly summarize the literature across a subset of exposures, domains, and axes of heterogeneity. The literature we draw from, though, and the new studies in this issue largely approach these questions using an overlapping set of viewpoints, interests, and insights, if not a specific disciplinary perspective and methodological conventions. We summarize the literature’s focus on socioeconomic sources of heterogeneity. Scholars often theorize that highly resourced households will buffer or absorb the impacts of disruptive events during childhood. Other common tests of heterogeneity focus on demographic subgroups, such as age, gender, and race-ethnicity. Theories here are a bit more disparate, including differences in preferences, culture, or developmental periods that affect how children react to negative shocks. We add to these popular foci an interest in considering intersections between micro- and macro-level events. These intersections point to theories of social normativity to understand the diverse consequences of disruptive events. For example, the stress from unemployment might be higher in an area with low levels of job loss relative to an area with high unemployment because of the stigma, shame, and guilt from being unemployed in the former context. Linkages between macro and micro contexts also encourage further consideration of prior experiences with other disruptive shocks and, alternatively, being unprepared for or unaccustomed to disruption in households with high levels of resources. Indeed, we see a notable pattern in which those unlikely to experience disruption, possibly because they expect stability in their lives, may be most profoundly affected by a disruptive event. In addition to summarizing and integrating conceptual approaches and findings from the prior literature, we focus on the methodological challenges involved in identifying heterogeneous effects. Estimating credible main effects are often hard enough without attempting to uncover variation in these effects across subpopulations. Many conventional tools we use focus on getting the best estimates for the main effects and have less to say about their variation. We also face the issue that in assessing heterogeneous treatment effects (of a single treatment) we may in fact be capturing effects of heterogenous treatments. Moreover, we need to expand our toolkits to consider new axes of heterogeneity. To move beyond long-standing theories and conventions in quantitative social science, we should further integrate findings from qualitative studies and novel approaches using machine learning. Machine learning depends on researchers to select what is measured (and therefore what can be tested for heterogeneity) yet can direct our attention to promising axes of heterogeneity we may not have considered. These approaches could provide a powerful strategy against the current practice of, implicitly, assuming away many key sources of heterogeneity. Considering heterogeneity in the impact of disruption on children’s lives and trajectories is an important social-scientific task. Researchers across disciplines are increasingly undertaking this task, yet at times with limited theoretical foundations and analytic strategies. We hope this issue provides a useful resource to the research community and that it contributes to the systematic understanding of potentially vast variation in the consequences of disruption, especially in early life. ## FOOTNOTES * 1. Some school mobility is determined by the structure of the educational system, such as the transition from elementary to middle school or middle school to high school. However, the mobility that we are concerned with is so-called nonstructural. * 2. Some analyses also consider heterogeneity of health shocks by sex. One motivating reason for these analyses is that sex, and the different biological and social mechanisms tied with it, fit into either a differential efficiency argument or in a differential preferences and behaviors argument in societies that discriminate by sex. Differential efficiency by sex could result from the average differences in body size by sex in early life, different average pathways/timing of organ/brain development, or other processes—in economic jargon, are the “production functions” that translate inputs (nutrition, medical interventions, and so forth) into outputs (birth weight, cognition) different by sex? Differential preferences/behaviors reflect differential treatment by sex that does not reflect the efficiency differences but instead is driven by societal/parental mechanisms that discriminate by sex of the child. * 3. Registry-based studies outside of the U.S. have been able to pursue these questions in more detail. Yongfu Yu and colleagues (2017) show evidence of mortality effects on bereaved individuals who experienced loss of a sibling during childhood and find some heterogeneity based on sex, the siblings’ age difference, and sibship composition. * © 2024 Russell Sage Foundation. Torche, Florencia, Jason Fletcher, and Jennie E. Brand. 2024. “Disparate Effects of Disruptive Events on Children.” *RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences* 10(1): 1–30. DOI: 10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.01. Brand benefited from facilities and resources provided by the California Center for Population Research at UCLA, which receives core support (P2C-HD041022) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Fletcher benefited from facilities and resources of the Center for Demography of Health and Aging at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (NIA CoreGrant P30 AG17266). The ideas expressed in this article are those of the authors, who each contributed equally to it. Direct correspondence to: Florencia Torche, at torche{at}stanford.edu, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States; Jason Fletcher, at jfletcher{at}lafollette.wisc.edu, University of Wisconsin, Madison, United States; Jennie E. Brand, at brand{at}soc.ucla.edu, UCLA, United States. Open Access Policy: *RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences* is an open access journal. This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. ## REFERENCES 1. Agostinelli, Francesco, Matthias Doepke, Giuseppe Sorrenti, and Fabrizio Zilibotti. 2020. “When the Great Equalizer Shuts Down: Schools, Peers, and Parents in Pandemic Times.” NBER Working Paper 28264. 2. Alcaino, Manuel, and Pablo Argote. 2024. “Politics Matter: How Political Experience Mitigates Learning Losses Caused by Natural Disasters.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 181–204. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.08](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.08). 3. Alexander, Karl L., Doris R. Entwisle, and Susan L. Dauber. 1996. “Children in Motion: School Transfers and Elementary School Performance.” Journal of Educational Research 90(1): 3–12. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/00220671.1996.9944438&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996VQ51100001&link_type=ISI) 4. Almond, Douglas, Lena Edlund, and Mårten Palme. 2009. “Chernobyl’s Subclinical Legacy: Prenatal Exposure to Radioactive Fallout and School Outcomes in Sweden.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(4): 1729–72. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1729&link_type=DOI) 5. Amato, Paul R. 2000. “The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62(4): 1269–87. 6. 1. Greg Duncan and 2. Richard Murnane Ananat, Elizabeth, Anna Gassman-Pines, and Christina Gibson-Davis. 2011. “The Effect of Local Employment Losses on Children’s Educational Achievement.” In *Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain Life Changes of Low-Income Children*, edited by Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 7. Andrew, Alison, Sarah Cattan, Monica Costa Dias, Christine Farquharson, Lucy Kraftman, Sonya Krutikova, Angus Phimister, and Almudena Sevilla. 2020. “Inequalities in Children’s Experiences of Home Learning During the COVID-19 Lockdown in England.” Fiscal Studies 41(3): 653–83. 8. Aneshensel, Carol S. 1992. “Social Stress: Theory and Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 26(1): 15–38. 9. Aquino, Taylor, Jennie Brand, and Florencia Torche. 2022. “Unequal Effects of Disruptive Events.” Sociology Compass 16(4): 1–16. 10. Arcaya, Mariana, Ethan J. Raker, and Mary C. Waters. 2020. “The Social Consequences of Disasters: Individual and Community Change.” Annual Review of Sociology 46(1): 671–91. 11. Astone, Nan Marie, and Sara S. McLanahan. 1994. “Family Structure, Residential Mobility, and School Dropout: A Research Note.” Demography 31(4): 575–84. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2061791&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7890092&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1994PY58400002&link_type=ISI) 12. Athey, Susan, and Guido W. Imbens. 2019. “Machine Learning Methods That Economists Should Know About.” Annual Review of Economics 11(1): 685–725. 13. Azevedo, Joao Pedro, Amer Hasan, Diana Goldemberg, Syedah Aroob Iqbal, and Koen Geven. 2020. “Simulating the Potential Impacts of COVID-19 School Closures on Schooling and Learning Outcomes: A Set of Global Estimates.” *Policy Research* working paper no. 9284. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Accessed May 2, 2022. [http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33945](http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33945). 14. Bacher-Hicks, Andrew, Joshua Goodman, and Christine Mulhern. 2021. “Inequality in Household Adaptation to Schooling Shocks: Covid-Induced Online Learning Engagement in Real Time.” Journal of Public Economics 193 (January): 104345–361. 15. Bailey, Martha J., Peter Z. Lin, A. R. Shariq Mohammed, and Alexa Prettyman. 2024. “The Effects of the Great Depression on Children’s Intergenerational Mobility.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 32–56. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2023.10.1.02](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2023.10.1.02). 16. 1. Ute-Christine Kleh and 2. Edwin van Hooft Bambra, Clare, and Terje Eikemo. 2018. “Insecurity, Unemployment, and Health: A Social Epidemiological Perspective.” In *Oxford Library of Psychology*, edited by Ute-Christine Kleh and Edwin van Hooft. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 17. Baranowska-Rataj, Anna, Björn Högberg, and Jonas Voßemer. 2024. “Do Consequences of Parental Job Displacement for Infant Health Vary Across Local Economic Contexts?” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 57–80. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.03](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.03). 18. Bayrakdar, Sait, and Ayse Guveli. 2023. “Inequalities in Home Learning and School’s Remote Teaching Provision During the COVID-19 School Closure in the UK.” Sociology 57(4): 767–88. 19. Becker, Gary S., and Nigel Tomes. 1976. “Child Endowments and the Quantity and Quality of Children.” Journal of Political Economy 84(4): S143–62. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/260536&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1976CA67700008&link_type=ISI) 20. Bernardi, Fabrizio, and Diederik Boertien. 2016. “Understanding Heterogeneity in the Effects of Parental Separation on Educational Attainment in Britain: Do Children from Lower Educational Backgrounds Have Less to Lose?” European Sociological Review 32(6): 807–19. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/esr/jcw036&link_type=DOI) 21. Bernardi, Fabrizio, and Jonas Radl. 2014. “The Long-Term Consequences of Parental Divorce for Children’s Educational Attainment.” Demographic Research 30(61): 1653–80. 22. Birkmann, Joern, Philip Buckle, J. Jaeger, Mark Pelling, Neysa Setiadi, Matthias Gerschagen, Mishara Fernando, and Jürgen P. Kropp. 2010. “Extreme Events and Disasters: A Window of Opportunity for Change? Analysis of Organizational, Institutional and Political Changes, Formal and Informal Responses After Mega-Disasters.” Natural Hazards 55(3): 637–55. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11069-008-9319-2&link_type=DOI) 23. Blaikie, Piers, Terry Cannon, Ian Davis, and Ben Wisner. 1994. *At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters*. London: Routledge. 24. 1. Richard T. Serpe Bolin, Robert, and Liza C. Kurtz. 2007. “Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Disaster Vulnerability.” In *Handbook of Disaster Research*, edited by Richard T. Serpe. New York: Springer. 25. Bolin, Robert, and Lois Stanford. 1998. *The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster*. New York: Routledge. 26. Boustan, Leah Platt, Matthew E. Kahn, Paul W. Rhode, and Maria Lucia Yanguas. 2020. “The Effect of Natural Disasters on Economic Activity in US Counties: A Century of Data.” Journal of Urban Economics 118 (July): 103257. 27. Brady, David, Ryan M. Finnigan, and Sabine Hübgen. 2017. “Rethinking the Risks of Poverty: A Framework for Analyzing Prevalences and Penalties.” American Journal of Sociology 123(3): 740–86. 28. Brand, Jennie E. 2006. “The Effects of Job Displacement on Job Quality: Findings from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 24(3): 275–98. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.rssm.2006.03.001&link_type=DOI) 29. Brand, Jennie E. 2015. “The Far-Reaching Impact of Job Loss and Unemployment.” Annual Review of Sociology 41(1): 359–75. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043237&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26336327&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 30. Brand, Jennie, and Sarah Burgard. 2008. “Job Displacement and Social Participation over the Lifecourse: Findings for a Cohort of Joiners.” Social Forces 87(1): 211–42. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1353/sof.0.0083&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20827387&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000261314900009&link_type=ISI) 31. Brand, Jennie E., Ravaris Moore, Xi Song, and Yu Xie. 2019a. “Parental Divorce Is Not Uniformly Disruptive to Children’s Educational Attainment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116(15): 7266–71. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTE2LzE1LzcyNjYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoxOToiL3JzZmpzcy8xMC8xLzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 32. Brand, Jennie E., Ravaris Moore, Xi Song, and Yu Xie. 2019b. “Why Does Parental Divorce Lower Children’s Educational Attainment? A Causal Mediation Analysis.” Sociological Science 6 (April): 264–92. 33. 1. Stephen L. Morgan Brand, Jennie E., and Juli Simon Thomas. 2013. “Causal Effect Heterogeneity.” In *Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research*, edited by Stephen L. Morgan. New York: Springer. 34. Brand, Jennie E., and Juli Simon Thomas. 2014. “Job Displacement among Single Mothers: Effects on Children’s Outcomes in Young Adulthood.” American Journal of Sociology 119(4): 955–1001. 35. Brand, Jennie E., Jiahui Xu, Bernard Koch, and Pablo Geraldo. 2021. “Uncovering Sociological Effect Heterogeneity Using Tree-Based Machine Learning.” Sociological Methodology 51(2): 189–223. 36. Brand, Jennie E., Xiang Zhou, and Yu Xie. 2023. “Recent Developments in Causal Inference and Machine Learning.” Annual Review of Sociology 49: 81–110. 37. Brevoort, Kenneth P., and Cheryl R. Cooper. 2013. “Foreclosure’s Wake: The Credit Experiences of Individuals Following Foreclosure.” Real Estate Economics 41(4): 747–92. 38. Burgard, Sarah A., Kristin S. Seefeldt, and Sarah Zelner. 2012. “Housing Instability and Health: Findings from the Michigan Recession and Recovery Study.” Social Science & Medicine 75(12): 2215–24. 39. Burke, Peter J. 1991. “Identity Processes and Social Stress.” American Sociological Review 56(6): 836. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2096259&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1991GW16900011&link_type=ISI) 40. Calarco, Jessica. 2018. *Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 41. Catalano, Ralph, Sidra Goldman-Mellor, Katherine Saxton, Claire Margerison-Zilko, Meenakshi Subbaraman, Kaja LeWinn, and Elizabeth Anderson. 2011. “The Health Effects of Economic Decline.” Annual Review of Public Health 32 (April): 431–50. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101146&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21054175&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000290776200024&link_type=ISI) 42. Cherlin, Andrew, P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, and Christine McRae. 1998. “Effects of Parental Divorce on Mental Health Throughout the Life Course.” American Sociological Review 63(2): 239–49. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2657325&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000073129800005&link_type=ISI) 43. Clark, Andrew. 2003. “Unemployment as a Social Norm: Psychological Evidence from Panel Data.” Journal of Labor Economics 21(2): 323–51. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/345560&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000181460000003&link_type=ISI) 44. Clark, Andrew, Yannis Georgellis, and Peter Sanfey. 2001. “Scarring: The Psychological Impact of Past Unemployment.” Economica 68(270): 221–41. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1468-0335.00243&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000169268800005&link_type=ISI) 45. Cochrane, Harold C. 1975. *Natural Hazards and Their Distributive Effects*. Boulder: University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science. 46. Cohn, Richard. 1978. “The Effect of Employment Status Change on Self-Attitudes.” Social Psychology 41(2): 81–93. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/3033568&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1978FK13500001&link_type=ISI) 47. Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–120. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/228943&link_type=DOI) 48. Coleman, James S. 1990. “Commentary: Social Institutions and Social Theory.” American Sociological Review 55(3): 333–39. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2095759&link_type=DOI) 49. 1. Greg J. Duncan and 2. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn Conger, Rand, Catherine Conger, and Glen Elder. 1997. “Family Economic Hardship and Adolescent Adjustment: Mediating and Moderating Processes.” In *The Consequences of Growing Up Poor*, edited by Greg J. Duncan and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 50. Couch, Kenneth A., and Dana W. Placzek. 2010a. “Earnings Losses of Displaced Workers Revisited.” American Economic Review 100(1): 572–89. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1257/aer.100.1.572&link_type=DOI) 51. Couch, Kenneth A., and Dana W. Placzek. 2010b. “Earnings Losses of Displaced Workers Revisited.” American Economic Review 100(1): 572–89. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1257/aer.100.1.572&link_type=DOI) 52. Couch, Kenneth, Nicholas Jolly, and Dana Placzek. 2011. “Earnings Losses of Displaced Workers and the Business Cycle: An Analysis with Administrative Data.” Economics Letters 111(1): 16–19. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.econlet.2010.12.011&link_type=DOI) 53. Cross, Christina J. 2020. “Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Association Between Family Structure and Children’s Education.” Journal of Marriage and Family 82(2): 691–712. 54. Cunha, Flavio, and James Heckman. 2007. “The Technology of Skill Formation.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 97(2): 31–47. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1257/aer.97.2.31&link_type=DOI) 55. Currie, Janet, and Rosemary Hyson. 1999. “Is the Impact of Health Shocks Cushioned by Socioeconomic Status? The Case of Low Birthweight.” American Economic Review 89(2): 245–50. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1257/aer.89.2.245&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000080438400044&link_type=ISI) 56. Currie, Janet, and Mark Stabile. 2003. “Socioeconomic Status and Child Health: Why Is the Relationship Stronger for Older Children?” American Economic Review 93(5): 1813–23. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1257/000282803322655563&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000187497800018&link_type=ISI) 57. Currie, Janet, Mark Stabile, Phongsack Manivong, and Leslie L. Roos. 2010. “Child Health and Young Adult Outcomes.” Journal of Human Resources 45(3): 517–48. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToid3BqaHIiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiNDUvMy81MTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoxOToiL3JzZmpzcy8xMC8xLzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 58. Currie, Janet, Joshua Graff Zivin, Jamie Mullins, and Matthew Neidell. 2014. “What Do We Know About Short- and Long-Term Effects of Early-Life Exposure to Pollution?” Annual Review of Resource Economics 6(1): 217–47. 59. Cylus, Jonathan, Maria Glymour, and Mauricio Avendano. 2015. “Health Effects of Unemployment Benefit Program Generosity.” American Journal of Public Health 105(2): 317–23. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2105/AJPH.2014.302253&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25521897&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 60. Damaske, Sarah. 2021. *The Tolls of Uncertainty: How Privilege and Guilt Gap Shape Unemployment in America*. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 61. Dash, Nicole, Betty Hearn Morrow, Juanita Mainster, and Lilia Cunningham. 2007. “Lasting Effects of Hurricane Andrew on a Working-Class Community.” Natural Hazards Review 8(1): 13–21. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2007)8:1(13)&link_type=DOI) 62. Davis, Steven, and Till von Wachter. 2012. “Recessions and the Cost of Job Loss.” Brookings Papers in Economic Activity 43: 1–72. 63. Deb, Partha, William T. Gallo, Padmaja Ayyagari, Jason M. Fletcher, Jody L. Sindelar. 2011. “The Effect of Job Loss on Overweight and Drinking.” Journal of Health Economics 30(2): 317–27. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.12.009&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21288586&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000290885400008&link_type=ISI) 64. DeLuca, Stefanie, Nicholas W. Papageorge, and Joseph L. Boselovic. 2024. “Exploring the Tradeoff Between Surviving and Thriving: Heterogeneous Responses to Adversity and Disruptive Events Among Disadvantaged Blacks.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 103–31. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.05](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.05). 65. Desmond, Matthew. 2012. “Eviction and the Reproduction of Urban Poverty.” American Journal of Sociology 118(1): 88–133. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/666082&link_type=DOI) 66. Desmond, Matthew, and Carl Gershenson. 2016. “Housing and Employment Insecurity Among the Working Poor.” Social Problems 63(1): 46–67. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/socpro/spv025&link_type=DOI) 67. Desmond, Matthew, Carl Gershenson, and Barbara Kiviat. 2015. “Forced Relocation and Residential Instability among Urban Renters.” Social Service Review 89(2): 227–62. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/681091&link_type=DOI) 68. Desmond, Matthew, and Rachel Tolbert Kimbro. 2015. “Eviction’s Fallout: Housing, Hardship, and Health.” Social Forces 94(1): 295–324. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/sf/sov044&link_type=DOI) 69. Di Pietro, Giorio, Federico Biagi, Patricia Costa, Zbigniew Karpinski, and Jacopo Mazza. 2020. “The Likely Impact of COVID-19 on Education: Reflections Based on the Existing Literature and International Datasets.” Luxembourg: Office of the European Union. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.2760/126686](https://doi.org/10.2760/126686). 70. Diamond, Rebecca, Adam Guren, and Rose Tan. 2020. “The Effect of Foreclosures on Homeowners, Tenants, and Landlords.” *NBER* working paper no. w27358. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research. 71. Diffenbaugh, Noah S., Deepti Singh, Justin S. Manki, Daniel E. Horton, Daniel L. Swain, Danielle Touma, Allison Charland, Yunjie Liu, Matz Haugen, Michael Tsiang, and Bala Rajaratnam. 2017. “Quantifying the Influence of Global Warming on Unprecedented Extreme Climate Events.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(19): 4881–86. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTE0LzE5LzQ4ODEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoxOToiL3JzZmpzcy8xMC8xLzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 72. DiPrete, Thomas A., and Gregory M. Eirich. 2006. “Cumulative Advantage as a Mechanism for Inequality: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Developments.” Annual Review of Sociology 32(1): 271–97. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000240319100012&link_type=ISI) 73. Dooley, David, Joann Prause, and Kathleen A. Ham-Rowbottom. 2000. “Underemployment and Depression: Longitudinal Relationships.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41(4): 421–36. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2676295&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11198566&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000166351900004&link_type=ISI) 74. Downing, Janelle. 2016. “The Health Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis and Unaffordable Housing: A Systematic Review and Explanation of Evidence.” Social Science & Medicine 162 (August): 88–96. 75. Dwyer, Rachel E. 2018. “Credit, Debt, and Inequality.” Annual Review of Sociology 44(1): 237–61. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053420&link_type=DOI) 76. Eddy, Julie, and Mark Poehlman. 2012. *Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners*. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. 77. Education Trust. 2020. “Parents Overwhelmingly Concerned Their Children Are Falling Behind During School Closures.” Accessed June 12, 2023. [https://edtrust.org/parents-overwhelmingly-concerned-their-children-are-falling-behind-during-school-closures/](https://edtrust.org/parents-overwhelmingly-concerned-their-children-are-falling-behind-during-school-closures/). 78. Edwards, Linsey. 2018. “Time and Efficacy: Neighborhoods, Temporal Constraints, and the Persistence of Poverty.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University. 79. Elder, Glen H., Jr. 1974. *Children of the Great Depression*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 80. Elliott, James R., and Jeremy Pais. 2006. “Race, Class, and Hurricane Katrina: Social Differences in Human Responses to Disaster.” Social Science Research 35(2): 295–321. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.02.003&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000238405400001&link_type=ISI) 81. Elliott, James R., and Jeremy Pais. 2010. “When Nature Pushes Back: Environmental Impact and the Spatial Redistribution of Socially Vulnerable Populations: Environmental Impact and Spatial Redistribution.” Social Science Quarterly 91(5): 1187–202. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00727.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21125761&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 82. Engzell, Per, Arun Frey, and Mark D. Verhagen. 2021. “Learning Loss Due to School Closures During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(17): e2022376118. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxODoiMTE4LzE3L2UyMDIyMzc2MTE4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MTk6Ii9yc2Zqc3MvMTAvMS8xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 83. Evans, Gary W. 2003. “The Built Environment and Mental Health.” Journal of Urban Health 80(4): 536–55. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jurban/jtg063&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14709704&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000187945200004&link_type=ISI) 84. Evans, Gary W., Dongping Li, and Sara Sepanski Whipple. 2013. “Cumulative Risk and Child Development.” Psychological Bulletin 139(6): 1342–96. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/a0031808&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23566018&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 85. Fallick, Bruce C. 1996. “A Review of the Recent Empirical Literature on Displaced Workers.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50(1): 5–16. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/001979399605000101&link_type=DOI) 86. Farber, Henry S. 1997. “The Changing Face of Job Loss in the United States, 1981–1995.” *Brookings Papers on Economic Activity*. Accessed June 12, 2023. [https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/1997\_bpeamicro\_farber.pdf](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/1997_bpeamicro_farber.pdf). 87. Farber, Henry S. 2005. “What Do We Know About Job Loss in the United States? Evidence from the Displaced Workers Survey, 1984–2004.” Economic Perspectives 29(2): 13–28. 88. 1. Katharine Abraham, 2. James Spletzer, and 3. Michael Harper Farber, Henry S. 2010. “Job Loss and the Decline in Job Security in the United States.” In *Labor in the New Economy*, edited by Katharine Abraham, James Spletzer, and Michael Harper. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research. Accessed October 24, 2022. [https://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/nbrnberch/10822.htm](https://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/nbrnberch/10822.htm). 89. Farber, Henry S. 2011. “Job Loss in the Great Recession: Historical Perspective from the Displaced Workers Survey, 1984–2010.” *NBER* working paper no. 17040. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research. 90. Farley, Reynolds. 1996. *The New American Reality: Who We Are, How We Got Here, Where We Are Going*. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 91. Feder, Adriana, Eric J. Nestler, and Dennis S. Charney. 2009. “Psychobiology and Molecular Genetics of Resilience.” Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 10(6): 446–57. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrn2649&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19455174&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000266199300012&link_type=ISI) 92. Finkeldey, Jessica G., and Christopher R. Dennison. 2020. “Multilevel Effects of Parental Incarceration on Adult Children’s Neighborhood Disadvantage.” *Social Problems*. Accessed June 26, 2021. [https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article/doi/10.1093/socpro/spz001/5370382](https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article/doi/10.1093/socpro/spz001/5370382). 93. Fletcher, Jason M. 2014. “The Effects of Childhood ADHD on Adult Labor Market Outcomes.” Health Economics 23(2): 159–81. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/hec.2907&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23427026&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 94. Fletcher, Jason, Marsha Mailick, Jieun Song, and Barbara Wolfe. 2012. “A Sibling Death in the Family: Common and Consequential.” Demography 50(3): 803–26. 95. Fletcher, Jason M., and Jody L. Sindelar. 2012. “The Effects of Family Stressors on Substance Use Initiation in Adolescence.” Review of Economics of the Household 10: 99–114. 96. Fletcher, Jason, Marian Vidal-Fernandez, and Barbara Wolfe. 2018. “Dynamic and Heterogeneous Effects of Sibling Death on Children’s Outcomes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(1): 115–20. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxMTUvMS8xMTUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoxOToiL3JzZmpzcy8xMC8xLzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 97. Fletcher, Jason, and Barbara Wolfe. 2008. “Child Mental Health and Human Capital Accumulation: The Case of ADHD Revisited.” Journal of Health Economics 27(3): 794–800. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.10.010&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18221807&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256841800017&link_type=ISI) 98. Fletcher, Jason, and Barbara Wolfe. 2009. “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood ADHD on Criminal Activities.” Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 12(3): 119–38. [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19996475&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000270080600003&link_type=ISI) 99. Foster, Holly, and John Hagan. 2015. “Punishment Regimes and the Multilevel Effects of Parental Incarceration: Intergenerational, Intersectional, and Interinstitutional Models of Social Inequality and Systemic Exclusion.” Annual Review of Sociology 41(1): 135–58. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112437&link_type=DOI) 100.Fothergill, Alice, and Lori A. Peek. 2004. “Poverty and Disasters in the United States: A Review of Recent Sociological Findings.” Natural Hazards 32(1): 89–110. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000026792.76181.d9&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000221247800005&link_type=ISI) 101.Fothergill, Alice, and Lori A. Peek. 2015. *Children of Katrina*. Austin: University of Texas Press. 102.Fowler, Katherine A., R. Matthew Gladden, Kevin J. Vagi, Jamar Barnes, and Leroy Frazier. 2015. “Increase in Suicides Associated with Home Eviction and Foreclosure During the US Housing Crisis: Findings from 16 National Violent Death Reporting System States, 2005–2010.” American Journal of Public Health 105(2): 311–16. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2105/AJPH.2014.301945&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25033148&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 103.1. Colin Elman, 2. John Gerring, and 3. James Mahoney Freese, Jeremy, and David Peterson. 2020. “Replication in Quantitative Research.” In *The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science*, edited by Colin Elman, John Gerring, and James Mahoney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 104.Fuchs-Schündeln, Nicola, Dirk Krueger, Alexander Ludwig, and Irina Popova. 2020. “The Long-Term Distributional and Welfare Effects of COVID-19 School Closures.” *NBER* working paper no. w27773. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research. Accessed April 26, 2022. [https://www.nber.org/papers/w27773](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27773). 105.Furstenberg, Frank F., Thomas D. Cook, Jacquelynne S. Eccles, Glen H. Elder Jr., and Arnold Sameroff. 1999. *Managing to Make It: Urban Families in High-Risk Neighborhoods*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 106.Fussell, Elizabeth. 2015. “The Long-Term Recovery of New Orleans’ Population After Hurricane Katrina.” American Behavioral Scientist 59(10): 1231–45. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0002764215591181&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26880853&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 107.Fussell, Elizabeth, Sara R. Curran, Matthew D. Dunbar, Michael A. Babb, Luanne Thompson, and Jacqueline Meijerirons. 2017. “Weather-Related Hazards and Population Change: A Study of Hurricanes and Tropical Storms in the United States, 1980–2012.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 669(1): 146–67. 108.Gassman-Pines, Anna, Christina M. Gibson-Davis, and Elizabeth O. Ananat. 2015. “How Economic Downturns Affect Children’s Development: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Pathways of Influence.” Child Development Perspectives 9(4): 233–38. 109.George, Linda K. 1993. “Sociological Perspectives on Life Transitions.” Annual Review of Sociology 19(1): 353–73. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev.so.19.080193.002033&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993LT73600015&link_type=ISI) 110.Gray, Clark L., and Valerie Mueller. 2012. “Natural Disasters and Population Mobility in Bangladesh.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(16): 6000–6005. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTA5LzE2LzYwMDAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoxOToiL3JzZmpzcy8xMC8xLzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 111.Grigg, Jeffrey. 2012. “School Enrollment Changes and Student Achievement Growth: A Case Study in Educational Disruption and Continuity.” Sociology of Education 85(4): 388–404. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0038040712441374&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000309140200005&link_type=ISI) 112.Gump, Brooks B., and Karen A. Matthews. 1999. “Do Background Stressors Influence Reactivity to and Recovery from Acute Stressors?” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29(3): 469–94. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01397.x&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000080438100002&link_type=ISI) 113.Hainmueller, Jens, Jonathan Mummolo, and Yiqing Xu. 2019. “How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice.” Political Analysis 27(2): 163–92. 114.Hammerstein, Svenja, Christoph König, Thomas Dreisörner, and Andreas Frey. 2021. “Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement—A Systematic Review.” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (September): 746289. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746289](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746289). 115.Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain, and Steven G. Rivkin. 2004. “Disruption Versus Tiebout Improvement: The Costs and Benefits of Switching Schools.” Journal of Public Economics 88(9–10): 1721–46. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0047-2727(03)00063-X&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000222185300003&link_type=ISI) 116.Harris, Douglas N., Feng Chen, Rylie C. Martin, Ann F. Bernhardt, Christopher R. Marsicano, and Paul T. von Hippel. 2024. “The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Educational Attainment.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 152–80. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.07](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.07). 117.Harvey, John H., and Mark A. Fine. 2011. *Children of Divorce: Stories of Loss and Growth*. New York: Routledge, 2011. 118.Hatzenbuehler, Mark, Jo Phelan, and Bruce Link. 2013. “Stigma as a Fundamental Cause of Population Health Inequalities.” American Journal of Public Health 103(5): 813–21. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2105/AJPH.2012.301069&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23488505&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000330949300026&link_type=ISI) 119.Haveman, Robert, Barbara Wolfe, and James Spaulding. 1991. “Childhood Events and Circumstances Influencing High School Completion.” Demography 28(1): 133–57. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2061340&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2015940&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1991EY02000008&link_type=ISI) 120.Heathcote, Jonathan, Fabrizio Perri, and Giovanni L. Violante. 2020. *The Rise of US Earnings Inequality: Does the Cycle Drive the Trend?* Staff Report no. 604. Minneapolis: Federal Reserve Bank. Accessed June 18, 2021. [https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/staff-reports/the-rise-of-us-earnings-inequality-does-the-cycle-drive-the-trend](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/staff-reports/the-rise-of-us-earnings-inequality-does-the-cycle-drive-the-trend). 121.Heckman, James J. 2006. “Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children.” Science 312(5782): 1900–902. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMTIvNTc4Mi8xOTAwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MTk6Ii9yc2Zqc3MvMTAvMS8xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 122.Heckman, James J., Daniel Schmierer, and Sergio Urzua. 2010. “Testing the Correlated Random Coefficient Model.” Journal of Econometrics 158(2): 177–203. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.01.005&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21057649&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 123.Hepburn, Peter, Renee Louis, and Matthew Desmond. 2020. “Racial and Gender Disparities Among Evicted Americans.” Sociological Science 7(27): 649–62. 124.Hewitt, Kenneth. 1997. *Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters*. Boston, Mass.: Addison Wesley Longman. 125.Hoffman, Jeremy S., Vivek Shandas, and Nicholas Pendleton. 2020. “The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exposure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Study of 108 US Urban Areas.” Climate 8(1): 12. 126.Hoke, Morgan K., and Courtney E. Boen. 2021. “The Health Impacts of Eviction: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.” Social Science & Medicine 273: 113742. DOI: [https://10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113742](https://10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113742). 127.Houle, Jason N., and Michael T. Light. 2017. “The Harder They Fall? Sex and Race/Ethnic Specific Suicide Rates in the U.S. Foreclosure Crisis.” Social Science & Medicine 180(C): 114–24. 128.House, James S. 1987. “Social Support and Social Structure.” Sociological Forum 2 (December): 135–46. 129.Hsin, Amy. 2012. “Is Biology Destiny? Birth Weight and Differential Parental Treatment.” Demography 49(4): 1385–405. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s13524-012-0123-y&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22865101&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000310954300010&link_type=ISI) 130.Imai, Kosuke, Luke Keele, Dustin Tingley, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review 105(4): 765–89. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S0003055411000414&link_type=DOI) 131.Jack, Rebecca, Clare Halloran, James Okun, and Emily Oster. 2023. “Pandemic Schooling Mode and Student Test Scores: Evidence from US School Districts.” American Economic Review Insights 5(2): 173–90. 132.Jackson, Michelle, and Brian Holzman. 2020. “A Century of Educational Inequality in the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(32): 19108–15. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTE3LzMyLzE5MTA4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MTk6Ii9yc2Zqc3MvMTAvMS8xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 133.Jahoda, Marie. 1981. “Work, Employment, and Unemployment: Values, Theories, and Approaches in Social Research.” American Psychologist 36(2): 184. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.184&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1981LE97800008&link_type=ISI) 134.Jahoda, Marie. 1982. *Employment and Unemployment*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 135.Jans, Jenny, Per Johansson, and J. Peter Nilsson. 2018. “Economic Status, Air Quality, and Child Health: Evidence from Inversion Episodes.” Journal of Health Economics 61 (September): 220–32. 136.Johnson, Elizabeth I., and Beth Easterling. 2012. “Understanding Unique Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children: Challenges, Progress, and Recommendations.” Journal of Marriage and Family 74(2): 342–56. 137.Johnson, Rucker C., Ariel Kalil, and Rachel E. Dunifon. 2012. “Employment Patterns of Less-Skilled Workers: Links to Children’s Behavior and Academic Progress.” Demography 49(2): 747–72. [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22246798&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 138.Kaffenberger, Michelle. 2021. “Modelling the Long-Run Learning Impact of the Covid-19 Learning Shock: Actions to (More than) Mitigate Loss.” International Journal of Educational Development 81 (March): 102326. 139.Kalil, Ariel, and Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest. 2005. “Single Mothers’ Employment Dynamics and Adolescent Well-Being.” Child Development 76(1): 196–211. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00839.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15693767&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000226771500014&link_type=ISI) 140.Kalil, Ariel, and Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest. 2008. “Parental Employment Circumstances and Children’s Academic Progress.” Social Science Research 37(2): 500–515. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.08.007&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256106500009&link_type=ISI) 141.1. Alan C. Kerckhoff Kalleberg, Arne L. 2000. “Changing Contexts of Careers: Trends in Labor Market Structures and Some Implications for Labor Force Outcomes.” In *Generating Social Stratification*, edited by Alan C. Kerckhoff. London: Routledge. 142.Kalleberg, Arne L. 2009. “Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition.” American Sociological Review 74(1): 1–22. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/000312240907400101&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000263490200001&link_type=ISI) 143.Kalmijn, Matthijs. 2010. “Racial Differences in the Effects of Parental Divorce and Separation on Children: Generalizing the Evidence to a European Case.” Social Science Research 39(5): 845–56. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.05.002&link_type=DOI) 144.Kalmijn, Matthijs, and Wilfred Uunk. 2007. “Regional Value Differences in Europe and the Social Consequences of Divorce: A Test of the Stigmatization Hypothesis.” Social Science Research 36(2): 447–68. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.06.001&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000246600800002&link_type=ISI) 145.Kessler, Ronald C., J. Blake Turner, and James S. House. 1989. “Unemployment, Reemployment, and Emotional Functioning in a Community Sample.” American Sociological Review 54(4): 648–57. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2095885&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1989AK56500013&link_type=ISI) 146.Khalid, Nazar, Jere Behrman, Emily Hannum, and Amrit Thapa. 2024. “Floods and Children’s Education in Rural India.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 230–54. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.10](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.10). 147.Kletzer, Lori G. 1998. “Job Displacement.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(1): 115–36. 148.Kogan, Vladimir, and Stéphane Lavertu. 2021. “The COVID-19 Pandemic and Student Achievement on Ohio’s Third-Grade English Language Arts Assessment.” Columbus: Ohio State University. 149.König, Christoph, and Andreas Frey. 2022. “The Impact of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement—A Meta-Analysis.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 41(1): 16–22. 150.Krusell, Per, and Anthony A. Smith. 1999. “On the Welfare Effects of Eliminating Business Cycles.” Review of Economic Dynamics 2(1): 245–72. 151.Kuhfeld, Megan, James Soland, Beth Tarasawa, Angela Johnson, Erik Ruzek, and Jing Liu. 2020. “Projecting the Potential Impact of COVID-19 School Closures on Academic Achievement.” Educational Researcher 49(8): 549–65. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3102/0013189X20965918&link_type=DOI) 152.Lareau, Annette. 2011. *Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life*, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. 153.Lee, Dohoon, and Sara McLanahan. 2015. “Family Structure Transitions and Child Development: Instability, Selection, and Population Heterogeneity.” American Sociological Review 80(4): 738–63. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0003122415592129&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27293242&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 154.Leifheit, Kathryn M., Gabriel L. Schwartz, Craig E. Pollack, Maureen M. Black, Kathryn J. Edin, Keri N. Althoff, Jacky M. Jennings. 2020. “Eviction in Early Childhood and Neighborhood Poverty, Food Security, and Obesity in Later Childhood and Adolescence: Evidence from a Longitudinal Birth Cohort.” SSM—Population Health 11 (April): 100575. 155.Leventhal, Tama, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2000. “The Neighborhoods They Live In: The Effects of Neighborhood Residence on Child and Adolescent Outcomes.” Psychological Bulletin 126(2): 309. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.309&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10748645&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000087093500006&link_type=ISI) 156.Lindbeck, Assar, Sten Nyberg, and Jorgen W. Weibull. 1999. “Social Norms and Economic Incentives in the Welfare State.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(1): 1–35. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1162/003355399555936&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000079557200001&link_type=ISI) 157.Link, Bruce, and Jo Phelan. 2001. “Conceptualizing Stigma.” Annual Review of Sociology 27(1): 363–85. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170748100015&link_type=ISI) 158.Lleras, Christy, and Mary McKillip. 2017. “When Children Move: Behavior and Achievement Outcomes during Elementary School.” Journal of Educational Research 110(2): 177–87. 159.Logan, John R., Sukriti Issar, and Zengwang Xu. 2016. “Trapped in Place? Segmented Resilience to Hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, 1970–2005.” Demography 53(5): 1511–34. 160.Lundberg, Ian, Jennie E. Brand, and Nanum Jeon. 2022. “Researcher Reasoning Meets Computational Capacity: Machine Learning for Social Science.” Social Science Research 108 (November): 102807. Accessed October 24, 2022. [https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/s5zc8/](https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/s5zc8/). 161.Maldonado, Joana Elisa, and Kristof De Witte. 2022. “The Effect of School Closures on Standardised Student Test Outcomes.” British Educational Research Journal 48(1): 49–94. 162.Manago, Bianca. 2023. “Preregistration and Registered Reports in Sociology: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Other Considerations.” The American Sociologist 54(1): 193–210. 163.Manduca, Robert, and Robert J. Sampson. 2019. “Punishing and Toxic Neighborhood Environments Independently Predict the Intergenerational Social Mobility of Black and White Children.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(16): 7772–77. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTE2LzE2Lzc3NzIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoxOToiL3JzZmpzcy8xMC8xLzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 164.Maroto, Michelle Lee. 2015. “Pathways into Bankruptcy: Accumulating Disadvantage and the Consequences of Adverse Life Events.” Sociological Inquiry 85(2): 183–216. 165.Martin, Molly A. 2012. “Family Structure and the Intergenerational Transmission of Educational Advantage.” Social Science Research 41: 33–47. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.07.005&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23017695&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 166.McCloud, Laura, and Rachel E. Dwyer. 2011. “The Fragile American: Hardship and Financial Troubles in the 21st Century.” Sociological Quarterly 52(1): 13–35. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01197.x&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000285973800002&link_type=ISI) 167.McEwen, Bruce S., and Eliot Stellar. 1993. “Stress and the Individual: Mechanisms Leading to Disease.” Archives of Internal Medicine 153(18): 2093–101. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archinte.1993.00410180039004&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8379800&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993LY47100002&link_type=ISI) 168.McEwen, Craig A., and Bruce S. McEwen. 2017. “Social Structure, Adversity, Toxic Stress, and Intergenerational Poverty: An Early Childhood Model.” Annual Review of Sociology 43(1): 445–72. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053252&link_type=DOI) 169.McLanahan, Sara S. 1983. “Family Structure and Stress: A Longitudinal Comparison of Two-Parent and Female-Headed Families.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 45(2): 347–57. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/351513&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1983QR87000009&link_type=ISI) 170.McLanahan, Sara, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider. 2013. “The Causal Effect of Father Absence.” Annual Review of Sociology 39: 399–427. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145704&link_type=DOI) 171.McLaughlin, Katie, Arjit Nandi, Katherine M. Keyes, Monica Uddin, Allison E. Aiello, Sandro Galea, and Karestan C. Koenen. 2012. “Home Foreclosure and Risk of Psychiatric Morbidity During the Recent Financial Crisis.” Psychological Medicine 42(7): 1441–48. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S0033291711002613&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22099861&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 172.McLeod, Jane D., and Michael J. Shanahan. 1993. “Poverty, Parenting, and Children’s Mental Health.” American Sociological Review 58(3): 351–66. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2095905&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993LH58700003&link_type=ISI) 173.McLoyd, Vonnie C. 1998. “Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Child Development.” American Psychologist 53(2): 185–204. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9491747&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000072129300008&link_type=ISI) 174.McLoyd, Vonnie C., Toby Epstein Jayaratne, Rosario Ceballo, and Julio Borquez. 1994. “Unemployment and Work Interruption Among African American Single Mothers: Effects on Parenting and Adolescent Socioemotional Functioning.” Child Development 65(2): 562–89. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/1131402&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8013240&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1994NH83700020&link_type=ISI) 175.McLoyd, Vonnie C., and Leon Wilson. 1990. “Maternal Behavior, Social Support, and Economic Conditions as Predictors of Distress in Children.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 1990(46): 49–69. 176.Merton, Robert King, and Robert C. Merton. 1968. *Social Theory and Social Structure*. New York: Simon and Schuster. 177.Molina, Mario, and Filiz Garip. 2019. “Machine Learning for Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 45(1): 27–45. 178.Mukoyama, Toshihiko, and Ayşegül Şahin. 2006. “Costs of Business Cycles for Unskilled Workers.” Journal of Monetary Economics 53(8): 2179–93. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jmoneco.2005.08.014&link_type=DOI) 179.Mullainathan, Sendhil, and Eldar Shafir. 2013. *Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much*. New York: Times Books. 180.Nande, Anjalika, Justin Sheen, Emma L. Walters, Brennan Klein, Matteo Chinazzi, Andrei H. Gheorghe, Ben Adlam, Julianna Shinnick, Maria Florencia Tejeda, Samuel V. Scarpino, Alessandro Vespignani, Andrew J. Greenlee, Daniel Schneider, Michael Z. Levy, and Alison L. Hill. 2021. “The Effect of Eviction Moratoria on the Transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” Nature Communications 12(1): 2274. 181.Newman, Katherine. 1998. *Falling from Grace: Downward Mobility in the Age of Affluence*. Berkeley: University of California Press. 182.Noghanibehambari, Hamid, and Jason Fletcher. 2023. “In Utero and Childhood Exposure to Alcohol and Old Age Mortality: Evidence from the Temperance Movement in the US.” Economics & Human Biology 50: 101276. 183.Olshansky, Robert B., Laurie A. Johnson, Jedidiah Horne, and Brendan Nee. 2008. “Longer View: Planning for the Rebuilding of New Orleans.” Journal of the American Planning Association 74(3): 273–87. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/01944360802140835&link_type=DOI) 184.Oreopoulos, Philip, Marianne Page, and Ann Huff Stevens. 2008. “The Intergenerational Effects of Worker Displacement.” Journal of Labor Economics 26(3): 455–83. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/588493&link_type=DOI) 185.Owens, Jayanti, and Xinyan Cao. 2024. “Racial-Ethnic Heterogeneity in the Relationship Between an Early Elementary School ADHD Diagnosis and Later Child Well-Being.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 205–28. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.09](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.09). 186.1. Jonathan Gruber Page, Marianne, Ann Huff Stevens, and Jason Lindo. 2009. “Parental Income Shocks and Outcomes of Disadvantaged Youth in the United States.” In *The Problems of Disadvantaged Youth: An Economic Perspective*, edited by Jonathan Gruber. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 187.Pais, Jeremy F., and James R. Elliott. 2008. “Places as Recovery Machines: Vulnerability and Neighborhood Change After Major Hurricanes.” Social Forces 86(4): 1415–53. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1353/sof.0.0047&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256419300003&link_type=ISI) 188.Passaretta, Giampiero, and Jan Skopek. 2021. “Does Schooling Decrease Socioeconomic Inequality in Early Achievement? A Differential Exposure Approach.” American Sociological Review 86(6): 1017–42. 189.Patterson, Sarah E., Ashton M. Verdery, and Jonathan Daw. 2020. “Linked Lives and Childhood Experience of Family Death on Educational Attainment.” Socius 6 (December): 2378023120975594. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120975594](https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120975594). 190.Paul, Karsten I., and Klaus Moser. 2009. “Unemployment Impairs Mental Health: Meta-Analyses.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 74(3): 264–82. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.001&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000265444100004&link_type=ISI) 191.Peacock, Walter Gillis, Shannon Van Zandt, Yang Zhang, and Wesley E. Highfield. 2014. “Inequities in Long-Term Housing Recovery After Disasters.” Journal of the American Planning Association 80(4): 356–71. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/01944363.2014.980440&link_type=DOI) 192.1. Peacock, Walter Gillis, 2. Betty Hearn Morrow, and 3. Hugh Gladwin , eds. 1997. *Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and the Sociology of Disasters*. London: Routledge. 193.Pearlin, Leonard I., Elizabeth G. Menaghan, Morton A. Lieberman, and Joseph T. Mullan. 1981. “The Stress Process.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 22(4): 337. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2136676&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7320473&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1981MU21000002&link_type=ISI) 194.Perkins, Kristin L. 2019. “Changes in Household Composition and Children’s Educational Attainment.” Demography 56(2): 525–48. 195.Perkins, Kristin L. 2024. “Heterogeneous Household Change Among Children.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 82–102. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.04](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.04). 196.Platt, Stephen, and Norman Kreitman. 1984. “Trends in Parasuicide and Unemployment Edinburgh, 1968–82.” British Medical Journal 289 (October): 1029–32. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIyODkvNjQ1MS8xMDI5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MTk6Ii9yc2Zqc3MvMTAvMS8xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 197.Podgursky, Michael, and Paul Swaim. 1987. “Job Displacement and Earnings Loss: Evidence from the Displaced Worker Survey.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 41(1): 17–29. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/001979398704100102&link_type=DOI) 198.Rao, Aliya Hamid. 2020. *Crunch Time: How Married Couples Confront Unemployment*. Berkeley: University of California Press. 199.1. Greg J. Duncan and 2. Richard Murnane Raudenbush, Steven W., Marshall Jean, and Emily Art. 2011. “Year-by-Year and Cumulative Impacts of Attending a High-Mobility Elementary School on Children’s Mathematics Achievement in Chicago, 1995 to 2005.” In *Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances*, edited by Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 200.Rauscher, Emily, and Xinyan Cao. 2024. “Unequal Effects of Wildfire Exposure on Infant Health by Maternal Education, 1995–2020.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 255–74. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.11](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.11). 201.Reimer, David, Emil Smith, Ida Gran Andersen, and Bent Sortkær. 2021. “What Happens When Schools Shut Down? Investigating Inequality in Students’ Reading Behavior During Covid-19 in Denmark.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 71 (February): 100568. 202.Renzulli, Linda, and Ashley B. Barr. 2017. “Adapting to Family Setbacks: Malleability of Students’ and Parents’ Educational Expectations.” Social Problems 64(3): 351–72. 203.Rodriguez, Eunice, Kathryn Lasch, and June P. Mead. 1997. “The Potential Role of Unemployment Benefits in Shaping the Mental Health Impact of Unemployment.” International Journal of Health Services 27(4): 601–23. [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9399109&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997YJ25400002&link_type=ISI) 204.Rubin, Donald B. 1980. “Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data: The Fisher Randomization Test Comment.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 75(371): 591. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2287653&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1980KL55500018&link_type=ISI) 205.Rubin, Donald B. 1986. “Statistics and Causal Inference: Which Ifs Have Causal Answers.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 81(396): 961–62. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2289065&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986F049000010&link_type=ISI) 206.Ruhm, Christopher J. 1991. “Are Workers Permanently Scarred by Job Displacements?” American Economic Review 81(1): 319–24. [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1991FL24500021&link_type=ISI) 207.Rumberger, Russell W., Katherine A. Larson, Robert K. Ream, and Gregory J. Palardy. 1999. “The Educational Consequences of Mobility for California Students and Schools.” Policy Brief no. 99-2. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, Policy Analysis for California Education. 208.Rutan, Devin Q., and Matthew Desmond. 2021. “The Concentrated Geography of Eviction.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 693(1): 64–81. 209.Sacerdote, Bruce. 2012. “When the Saints Go Marching Out: Long-Term Outcomes for Student Evacuees from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 4(1): 109–35. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1257/app.4.1.109&link_type=DOI) 210.Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Felton Earls. 1999. “Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children.” American Sociological Review 64(5): 633–60. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2657367&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000083643600001&link_type=ISI) 211.Sandefur, Rebecca L., and Edward O. Laumann. 1998. “A Paradigm for Social Capital.” Rationality and Society 10(4): 481–501. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/104346398010004005&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000077040100005&link_type=ISI) 212.Schmitz, Lauren L., and Valentina Duque. 2022. “In Utero Exposure to the Great Depression Is Reflected in Late-Life Epigenetic Aging Signatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(46): e2208530119. 213.Schneider, Daniel, Orestes P. Hastings, and Joe LaBriola. 2018. “Income Inequality and Class Divides in Parental Investments.” American Sociological Review 83(3): 475–507. 214.Smith-Greenaway, Emily, and Shelley Clark. 2017. “Variation in the Link between Parental Divorce and Children’s Health Disadvantage in Low and High Divorce Settings.” SSM—Population Health 3 (April): 473–86. 215.Strand, Steve. 2002. “Pupil Mobility, Attainment and Progress During Key Stage 1: A Study in Cautious Interpretation.” British Educational Research Journal 28(1): 63–78. 216.Stutzer, Alois, and Rafael Lalive. 2004. “The Role of Social Work Norms in Job Searching and Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of the European Economic Association 2(4): 696–719. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1162/1542476041423331&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000208907100005&link_type=ISI) 217.Temple, Judy A, and Arthur Reynolds. 1999. “School Mobility and Achievement: Longitudinal Findings from an Urban Cohort.” Journal of School Psychology 37(4): 355–77. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00026-6&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085225500003&link_type=ISI) 218.Thomas, Timothy A., Ott Toomet, Ian Kennedy, and Alex Ramiller. 2019. “The State of Evictions: Results from the University of Washington Evictions Project.” Seattle: University of Washington. Accessed June 12, 2023. [https://evictionresearch.net/washington/](https://evictionresearch.net/washington/). 219.Tierney, Kathleen J. 2001. *Facing the Unexpected Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States*. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 220.Tierney, Kathleen J. 2006. “Foreshadowing Katrina: Recent Sociological Contributions to Vulnerability Science.” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 35(3): 207–12. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/009430610603500302&link_type=DOI) 221.Tierney, Kathleen J. 2007. “From the Margins to the Mainstream? Disaster Research at the Crossroads.” Annual Review of Sociology 33(1): 503–25. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131743&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000249022500023&link_type=ISI) 222.Torche, Florencia. 2018. “Prenatal Exposure to an Acute Stressor and Children’s Cognitive Outcomes.” Demography 55(5): 1611–39. 223.Torche, Florencia, and Alejandra Abufhele. 2021. “The Normativity of Marriage and the Marriage Premium for Children’s Outcomes.” American Journal of Sociology 126(4): 931–68. 224.Torche, Florencia, and Claire Daviss. 2022. “The Contextual Effect of Unemployment.” Paper presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting, Atlanta (April 6–9, 2022). 225.Torche, Florencia, and Andrés Villarreal. 2014. “Prenatal Exposure to Violence and Birth Weight in Mexico: Selectivity, Exposure, and Behavioral Responses.” American Sociological Review 79(5): 966–92. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0003122414544733&link_type=DOI) 226.Turner, J. Blake. 1995. “Economic Context and the Health Effects of Unemployment.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 36(3): 213–29. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2137339&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7594355&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995RZ10400001&link_type=ISI) 227.Turney, Kristin. 2017. “The Unequal Consequences of Mass Incarceration for Children.” Demography 54(1): 361–89. 228.Turney, Kristin, Amy Gong Liu, and Estéfani Marín. 2024. “Stepping In and Stepping Away: Variation in How Children Navigate Responsibilities Stemming from Paternal Incarceration.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1): 132–50. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.06](https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.1.06). 229.Turney, Kristin, and Christopher Wildeman. 2013. “Redefining Relationships: Explaining the Countervailing Consequences of Paternal Incarceration for Parenting.” American Sociological Review 78(6): 949–79. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0003122413505589&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000327310900002&link_type=ISI) 230.Turney, Kristin, and Christopher Wildeman. 2015. “Detrimental for Some? Heterogeneous Effects of Maternal Incarceration on Child Wellbeing.” Criminology & Public Policy 14(1): 125–56. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1745-9133.12109&link_type=DOI) 231.1. Vale, Lawrence J., and 2. Thomas J. Campanella , eds. 2005. *The Resilient City: How Modern Cities Recover from Disaster*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 232.VanderWeele, Tyler J. 2016. “Mediation Analysis: A Practitioner’s Guide.” Annual Review of Public Health 37 (2016): 17–32. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021402&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26653405&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) 233.VanderWeele, Tyler J., and Miguel A. Hernan. 2013. “Causal Inference Under Multiple Versions of Treatment.” Journal of Causal Inference 1(1): 1–20. 234.Verdery, Ashton M., Emily Smith-Greenaway, Rachel Margolis, and Jonathan Daw. 2020. “Tracking the Reach of COVID-19 Kin Loss with a Bereavement Multiplier Applied to the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(30): 17695–701. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTE3LzMwLzE3Njk1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MTk6Ii9yc2Zqc3MvMTAvMS8xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 235.Vogels, Emily. 2021. “Digital Divide Persists Even as Americans with Lower Incomes Make Gains in Tech Adoption.” Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Accessed June 12, 2023. [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/22/digital-divide-persists-even-as-americans-with-lower-incomes-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/22/digital-divide-persists-even-as-americans-with-lower-incomes-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/). 236.von Wachter, Till. 2010. “Long-Term Unemployment: Causes, Consequences and Solutions.” Hearing Before the Joint Economic Committee, 111th Congress, 2nd session. Accessed June 12, 2023. [https://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/111th%20Congress/Long-Term%20Unemployment%20-%20Causes,%20Consequences,%20and%20Solutions%20(1878).pdf](https://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/111th%20Congress/Long-Term%20Unemployment%20-%20Causes,%20Consequences,%20and%20Solutions%20(1878).pdf). 237.Wager, Stefan, and Susan Athey. 2018. “Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Using Random Forests.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 113(523): 1228–42. 238.Watson, Janine E., Russell S. Kirby, Kelly J. Kelleher, and Robert H. Bradley. 1996. “Effects of Poverty on Home Environment: An Analysis of Three-Year Outcome Data for Low Birth Weight Premature Infants.” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 21(3): 419–31. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jpepsy/21.3.419&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8935242&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996UL05900009&link_type=ISI) 239.Weitzman, Abigail, and Emily Smith-Greenaway. 2020. “The Marital Implications of Bereavement: Child Death and Intimate Partner Violence in West and Central Africa.” Demography 57(1): 347–71. 240.Welsh, Richard. 2017. “School Hopscotch: A Comprehensive Review of K–12 Student Mobility in the United States.” Review of Educational Research 87(3): 475–511. 241.Western, Bruce, Deirdre Bloome, Benjamin Sosnaud, and Laura Tach. 2012. “Economic Insecurity and Social Stratification.” Annual Review of Sociology 38(1): 341–59. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145434&link_type=DOI) 242.Wilson, William Julius. 1996. *When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor*. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 243.Wu, Lawrence L., and Elizabeth Thomson. 2001. “Race Differences in Family Experiences and Early Sexual Initiation: Dynamic Models of Family Structure and Family Change.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 63(3): 682–96. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00682.x&link_type=DOI) 244.Xie, Yu, Jennie E. Brand, and Ben Jann. 2012. “Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects with Observational Data.” Sociological Methodology 42: 314–47. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0081175012452652&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23482633&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frsfjss%2F10%2F1%2F1.atom) [Web of Science](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000339965700017&link_type=ISI) 245.Yu, Ang, Chan Park, Hyunseung Kang, and Jason Fletcher. 2021. “Leveraging Machine Learning to Estimate Effect Modification.” SocArXiv. Accessed October 24, 2022. [https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/8ewup](https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/8ewup). 246.Yu, Yongfu, Zeyan Liew, Sven Cnattingius, Jørn Olsen, Mogens Vestergaard, Bo Fu, Erik Thorlund Parner, Guoyou Qin, Naiqing Zhao, and Jiong Li. 2017. “Association of Mortality with the Death of a Sibling in Childhood.” JAMA Pediatrics 171(6): 538. 247.Zhang, Yang, and Walter Gillis Peacock. 2009. “Planning for Housing Recovery? Lessons Learned from Hurricane Andrew.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76(1): 5–24. [CrossRef](http://www.rsfjournal.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/01944360903294556&link_type=DOI) 248.Zhou, Xiang, and Yu Xie. 2019. “Marginal Treatment Effects from a Propensity Score Perspective.” Journal of Political Economy 127(6): 3070–84. 249.Zhou, Xiang, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2023. “Tracing Causal Paths from Experimental and Observational Data.” 85(1): 16. 250.Zierer, Klaus. 2021. “Effects of Pandemic-Related School Closures on Pupils’ Performance and Learning in Selected Countries: A Rapid Review.” Education Sciences 11(6): 252.