Skip to Navigation

RSF Review

RSF Review

Visiting Scholar Jane Waldfogel Elected President of APPAM

November 20, 2013

The Association of Public Policy and Analysis Management (APPAM) recently announced RSF Visiting Scholar Jane Waldfogel as its new president-elect. A professor of social work and public affairs at Columbia University School of Social Work and a visiting professor at the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics, Waldfogel’s current research focuses on work-family policies, improving the measurement of poverty, and understanding social mobility across countries.  In her role on the leadership council of APPAM, she will oversee their 2014 Fall Research Conference.

Waldfogel is currently spending the 2013-2014 academic year in residence at the Russell Sage Foundation as part of a working group with Bruce Bradbury, Miles Corak, and Elizabeth Washbrook. The team will write a book on the transmission of inequality across generations, comparing the development of children in Australia, Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. to analyze differences in school achievement among children of different socioeconomic status in these four countries. They will also examine whether achievement gaps between rich and poor children are related to differences between countries in public policies, private resources, and educational institutions.

Suzanne M. Bianchi, 1952-2013

November 18, 2013

The Russell Sage Foundation is saddened to report the passing of Suzanne M. Bianchi, a former Visiting Scholar and co-author of several RSF books. Bianchi, who held faculty positions in sociology at the University of Maryland and UCLA, rose to prominence for her groundbreaking research on the changing dynamics of late-20th-century American families, and in particular, for her demographic surveys on “time use”—or analyses of where, how, and with whom people spend their time. Her influential findings included the discovery that working mothers in the 1990s spent as much time with their children as stay-at-home mothers of the 1960s, averaging a weekly twelve hours of hands-on, close-contact time.

At the Russell Sage Foundation, Bianchi was a member of the working group Care Work in the United States and additionally served on the advisory committee of the U.S. 2010 program. A Visiting Scholar at the Foundation during the 2010-2011 academic year, she worked in collaboration with Judith Seltzer and Joseph Holtz to assess three primary pathways through which families transmit advantage or disadvantage to subsequent generations: genes and biology, economic resources and skills, and social ties and family obligations.

Bianchi was also the co-author of several books published by the Foundation, including American Women in Transition, Changing Rhythms of American Family Life, and Balancing Act: Motherhood, Marriage, and Employment Among American Women.

New Paper: Residential Segregation by Income, 1970-2009

November 14, 2013

The Foundation’s U.S. 2010 project has published a new report, “Residential Segregation by Income, 1970-2009,” by Kendra Bischoff and Sean F. Reardon. The paper describes the patterns and trends in family income segregation over the last 40 years. The main findings include:

  • Family income segregation grew in every decade from 1970-2009. The proportion in poor or affluent neighborhoods increased by 4.1 percentage points in the 1970s, by 4.6 percentage points in the 1980; by 4.2 percentage points in the 1990s, and by 5.1 percentage points from 2000-2009. The rate of growth in segregation in the 2000s was faster than in any of the three prior decades.
  • Segregation by income among black families was lower than among white families in 1970, but grew four times as much between 1970 and 2009. By 2009, income segregation among black families was 65 percent greater than among white families.
  • During the last four decades, the isolation of the rich has been consistently greater than the isolation of the poor. Although much of the scholarly and policy discussion about the effect of segregation and neighborhood conditions focuses on the isolation of poor families in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage, it is perhaps equally important to consider the implications of the substantial, and growing, isolation of high-income families.

Money Talks: Kathleen Vohs on the Self-Sufficiency Theory of Money

November 8, 2013

This feature is part of a new RSF blog series, Work in Progress, which will highlight some of the ongoing research of our current class of Visiting Scholars.

In this first installment, we focus on the work of Visiting Scholar Kathleen Vohs, Professor of Marketing and Land 'O Lakes Professor of Excellence in Marketing at the University of Minnesota. In collaboration with Professor Roy Baumeister, Vohs will spend the 2013-2014 academic year in residence at the Russell Sage Foundation investigating the self-sufficiency theory of money, or the idea that money is a source of independence for people that has both negative and positive effects on their behavior. How do people behave after they’ve been exposed to money?

RSF President Sheldon Danziger on the Release of the Supplemental Poverty Measure

Sheldon Danziger, Russell Sage Foundation
November 6, 2013

The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) released by the U.S. Census Bureau today (November 6, 2013) shows that the poverty rate for all persons was 16.0 percent in 2012, virtually the same as in 2011, 16.1 percent. A key finding in today’s Census release is that millions of people would have been poor in 2012 in the absence of our safety net programs. For example, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) raised about 5 million people above the poverty line; the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and other refundable tax credits raised more than 9 million people above the poverty line.
The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) is important because, unlike the Official Poverty Measure (OPM) which counts only money income (e.g., wages and cash transfers from the government), the SPM also includes non-cash government benefits such as SNAP, the school lunch program, housing subsidies and the EITC. These noncash benefits have grown more rapidly than cash benefits in recent decades.

RSF Author Greg J. Duncan Wins Jacobs Research Prize

October 31, 2013

The Russell Sage Foundation congratulates Greg J. Duncan, Distinguished Professor at the UC Irvine School of Education, who recently won the 2013 Klaus J. Jacobs Research Prize for his extensive and influential research on the long-term effects of poverty on child development. For over 25 years, Duncan and his colleagues followed a sample of American families and their children to measure the correlations between poverty in early life and life circumstances as adults. The resulting data showed that children from poor families are less likely to finish school and go on to work, and that they earn less than their peers from higher income families. Duncan and his colleagues additionally found that childhood poverty during the first five years of children’s lives has a greater impact on their later lives.
A former RSF Visiting Scholar (2004-2005), Duncan is also the co-author or co-editor of several RSF books exploring the impact of poverty on children, including Consequences of Growing Up Poor, Higher Ground: New Hope for the Working Poor and their Children, Neighborhood Poverty Volume One and Volume Two, and For Better and For Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families. With Richard J. Murnane, Duncan most recently co-edited Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children's Life Chances, which examines the corrosive effects of unequal family resources, disadvantaged neighborhoods, insecure labor markets, and worsening school conditions on children’s K-12 education.

New Issue of Annals Addresses the Effects of the Great Recession, with Contributions by RSF Grantees

October 30, 2013

The November issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science examines the aftermath of the Great Recession and the ways in which federal and state policies affected the course of the crisis. The issue includes an introduction by Russell Sage Foundation president, Sheldon Danziger, and features contributions from a distinguished group of leading social scientists, including several papers by scholars who contributed research to the Foundation’s Great Recession Initiative.
As Danziger outlines in his introduction, the Great Recession—which the National Bureau of Economic Research officially dates as lasting from December 2007 through June 2009—marks the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930s. In looking at the lingering effects on the housing market, unemployment rate, and an ever-widening wealth gap, research from the issue documents the significant social and economic costs of the recession—effects that are likely to persist for at least another decade.
The Russell Sage Foundation’s Great Recession Initiative provided support for many of the papers published in this issue of the Annals. Established in 2010, the Great Recession Initiative is a major research project which examines the effects of the Great Recession across a broad swath of America’s social and economic life. Moving beyond a simple description of trends, the Initiative analyzes some unanticipated implications of the downturn and uses a variety of methods and datasets to investigate many of the vexing and often unprecedented policy problems posed by the economic disruption, such as the slow recovery of the labor market and the rightward drift of political sentiment. In collaboration with the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, the Foundation also launched the Recession Trends website as part of the Initiative, a resource dedicated to monitoring the social and economic fallout of the recession.

The Complications of Choosing Affordable Health Care

Rohan Mascarenhas, Harvard Kennedy School
October 14, 2013

Last week, the federal government unveiled its online health insurance marketplace, a milestone in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. While much of the media coverage has focused on the technical glitches of the online portal—thousands of Americans reported long wait times, for example—a more fundamental policy question is at stake. The Obama Administration has argued that presenting insurance plans to consumers in one place and in a transparent fashion will spur competition among insurers, lower costs, and ultimately improve satisfaction. But what do we actually know about how consumers choose their health insurance plans? The stakes are high: If consumers choose wrongly, they may incur higher costs and premiums, and the federal government, which will subsidize these plans, may end up footing a larger bill. In this case, more competition may not lead to lower health care costs.
A new paper, published with the support of the Russell Sage Foundation, provides worrying evidence that consumers choosing health insurance are often prone to errors, over-confidence, and cost biases. The authors, Eric Johnson, Tom Baker, and Ran Hassin and their colleagues, used a model of the online health exchanges to test consumer decision-making. They asked subjects to pick a health insurance plan for a family of three, with a particular number of doctor visits and out-of-pocket health care costs over the next year. The results were dismal: When asked to choose among four plans, subjects selected the cost-effective option only 42 percent of the time, with the average error costing over $200. When presented eight options, subjects selected the correct option 21 percent of the time.

Holder's Announcement a Good Small Step

Steven Raphael and Michael A. Stoll, Russell Sage Foundation
October 11, 2013

Steven Raphael is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. Michael A. Stoll is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. They are the authors of Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?, a new book published by the Russell Sage Foundation that analyzes the shocking expansion of America’s prison system and illustrates the pressing need to rethink mass incarceration in this country.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement last month that federal prosecutors will no longer seek stiff mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenders marks a momentous shift in U.S. sentencing practices. After three decades of state and federal policy makers ratcheting up the severity of punishment for felony offenders, this is perhaps the most high profile example of policymakers across the country reevaluating the merits of these unusually harsh sentences. This is a welcome shift in policy that hopefully will be followed by state legislators across the country.

How the War on Poverty Still Helps Families with Children: An Interview with Jane Waldfogel

October 3, 2013

Legacies of the War on Poverty, a new book co-edited by Martha Bailey and Sheldon Danziger (Russell Sage Foundation, September 2013), offers a timely assessment of the War on Poverty, highlighting some remarkable policy successes of President Johnson’s antipoverty reforms in the 1960s—many of which still form the basis of the social safety net as we know it today. As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of Johnson’s 1964 State of the Union address—the speech in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty”—we will feature research and additional author insights from the book in an ongoing Q&A series on the RSF blog.
Our first interview is with Jane Waldfogel, professor of social work and public affairs at the Columbia University School of Social Work and author of the chapter “The Safety Net for Families with Children.” Waldfogel’s research examines the lasting effects of War on Poverty initiatives for low-income families with children, focusing on three enduring areas of the Johnson administration’s efforts to provide support for poor families, including food assistance benefits, cash welfare, and employment-contingent income support. A policy brief on the research from her chapter can be found here.
Q. Your chapter in Legacies of the War on Poverty illustrates the success of Food Stamps-SNAP in reducing food insecurity and lowering poverty rates (when using the Supplemental Poverty Measure). Yet, the House recently passed a bill that would cut SNAP by almost $40 million. What kinds of political shifts have occurred between the start of the War on Poverty and today that would account for this dramatic turn?