This study examines how a 2013 Arizona law on shared parenting would affect living arrangements, and thus mental health measures. There were two hypotheses. According to the Law Change Hypothesis, it was hypothesized that parenting time in Arizona would be more equal following the 2013 Arizona law change while there would be no change in parenting time in other states following the 2013 Arizona law change. It was further hypothesized that child mental health would be better after the law change in Arizona with no change being seen in other states. Results of this study were almost completely inconsistent with the hypothesis. According to the Law Reflect Hypothesis, the law is actually reflecting the behavior of the community and their thoughts on equal parenting time becoming more favorable, and therefore a change towards more equal parenting time would be found prior to 2013 in Arizona with no change seen in other states. Furthermore, as the Arizona community’s behavior changed, child mental health would be better with no change being seen in other states. Regressions found that a small change toward more equal parenting and closeness with father was prior to 2013 for Arizona students, compared to out-of-state students, although it did not find that the year of divorce resulted in less anxiety, stress, and depression. This partially agrees with past research that the 2013 law is working as intended, even if it started working earlier than we thought. This does not agree with previous research stating there is a connection between equal parenting and better mental health. This is important because this study questions the efficacy of an important and controversial policy. If future studies are consistent with this one, the effectiveness of the Arizona 2013 law change on mental health will need to be further evaluated.

The United States houses only five percent of the world’s population but over 20% of its prison population. There has been a dramatic increase in carceral numbers over the last several decades with much of this population being people with mental illness designations. Many scholars attribute this phenomenon to the process of deinstitutionalization, in which mental health institutions in the U.S. were shut down in the 1950s and ‘60s. However, disability scholar Liat Ben-Moshe argues that this is a dangerous oversimplification that fails to credit the deinstitutionalization movement as an abolitionist movement and to take into account shifting demographics between institutions and prisons/jails. This study considers how mass incarceration in the U.S. stems from a trend of isolating and punishing BIPOC and people with disabilities at disproportionate rates as it explores lived experiences at the intersection of mental health and incarceration. Findings inform an abolitionist agenda by highlighting the near impossibility of rehabilitation and treatment in an inherently traumatizing space.

The United States houses only five percent of the world’s population but over 20% of its prison population. There has been a dramatic increase in carceral numbers over the last several decades with much of this population being people with mental illness designations. Many scholars attribute this phenomenon to the process of deinstitutionalization, in which mental health institutions in the U.S. were shut down in the 1950s and ‘60s. However, disability scholar Liat Ben-Moshe argues that this is a dangerous oversimplification that fails to credit the deinstitutionalization movement as an abolitionist movement and to take into account shifting demographics between institutions and prisons/jails. This study considers how mass incarceration in the U.S. stems from a trend of isolating and punishing BIPOC and people with disabilities at disproportionate rates as it explores lived experiences at the intersection of mental health and incarceration. Findings inform an abolitionist agenda by highlighting the near impossibility of rehabilitation and treatment in an inherently traumatizing space.

This research aimed to examine college students’ perceived racial discrimination, mental health, and differences of these variables by US citizenship to promote healthier mental health practices within Asian college students. Mental disorders are a leading cause of suicidal ideation, which is the fourth leading cause of death among teenagers and young adults, becoming a global phenomenon. The rate of mental health problems, including anxiety and depression, have steadily increased in a decade, with higher rates among racial and ethnic minorities. More than half of adults with serious mental illnesses haven't received treatments, with minorities being more likely to delay or fail seeking mental health treatments due to cultural and structural barriers such as cultural stigma, racial discrimination, acculturation, and language, making it more difficult to address the inaccessibility to high mental health care services, especially for Asians. The findings of this study suggest that, compared to international students, domestic students have greater mental health service seeking intention, received worse racial discrimination (subject to slurs and suspiciousness) and worse mental health since Covid-19, and determined language concordance between patient and healthcare provider is important. International students have more negative beliefs towards the difficulties of treatment and care of mental illnesses and determined ethnicity concordance between patient and healthcare provider is important. The findings provide preliminary insight to acknowledge the differences between domestic and international students in their perceived racial discrimination and mental health. Furthermore, based on findings the issue can be addressed by implementing a mixed-method approach on collecting disaggregated data among this population, removing language and stigmatic barriers to mental health services by education, and promoting cultural competency among mental health workers.