Affords a comprehensive overview of evaluative research, answering questions regarding the adequacy of organized programs in health, justice, education, employment, and welfare. Included are general statements about evaluative research, discussing the nature of the evaluative task, the role of evaluative research in programs for change, and appropriate methodological strategies. In this revised and expanded collection of readings, which includes more case materials and more illustrations of completed evaluations than the first edition, the editor presents a variety of viewpoints and a broad range of materials for the social planner, administrator, and social scientist.

FRANCIS G. CARO was director of the Office of Program Planning and Research at the Community Service Society in New York City.
 

Poverty declined significantly in the decade after Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 declaration of “War on Poverty.” Dramatically increased federal funding for education and training programs, social security benefits, other income support programs, and a growing economy reduced poverty and raised expectations that income poverty could be eliminated within a generation. Yet the official poverty rate has never fallen below its 1973 level and remains higher than the rates in many other advanced economies. In this book, editors Maria Cancian and Sheldon Danziger and leading poverty researchers assess why the War on Poverty was not won and analyze the most promising strategies to reduce poverty in the twenty-first century economy.

Changing Poverty, Changing Policies documents how economic, social, demographic, and public policy changes since the early 1970s have altered who is poor and where antipoverty initiatives have kept pace or fallen behind. Part I shows that little progress has been made in reducing poverty, except among the elderly, in the last three decades. The chapters examine how changing labor market opportunities for less-educated workers have increased their risk of poverty (Rebecca Blank), and how family structure changes (Maria Cancian and Deborah Reed) and immigration have affected poverty (Steven Raphael and Eugene Smolensky). Part II assesses the ways childhood poverty influences adult outcomes. Markus Jäntti finds that poor American children are more likely to be poor adults than are children in many other industrialized countries. Part III focuses on current antipoverty policies and possible alternatives. Jane Waldfogel demonstrates that policies in other countries—such as sick leave, subsidized child care, and schedule flexibility—help low-wage parents better balance work and family responsibilities. Part IV considers how rethinking and redefining poverty might take antipoverty policies in new directions. Mary Jo Bane assesses the politics of poverty since the 1996 welfare reform act. Robert Haveman argues that income-based poverty measures should be expanded, as they have been in Europe, to include social exclusion and multiple dimensions of material hardships.

Changing Poverty, Changing Policies shows that thoughtful policy reforms can reduce poverty and promote opportunities for poor workers and their families. The authors’ focus on pragmatic measures that have real possibilities of being implemented in the United States not only provides vital knowledge about what works but real hope for change.

Listen to Maria Cancian speak about marriage on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday.

MARIA CANCIAN is professor of public affairs and social work and research affiliate of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

SHELDON DANZIGER is Henry J. Meyer Distinguished University Professor of Public Policy and director of the National Poverty Center at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

CONTRIBUTORS: Mary Jo Bane, Rebecca M. Blank, Maria Cancian, Benjamin Cowan, Sheldon Danziger, Robert Haveman, Harry J. Holzer, Brian A. Jacob, Markus Jäntti, Jens Ludwig, Katherine Magnuson, Daniel R. Meyer, Robert Moffitt, Deborah Reed, Steven Raphael, John Karl Scholz, Eugene Smolensky, Katherine Swartz, Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal, Jane Waldfogel, Geoffrey L. Wallace

An Institute for Research on Poverty Affiliated Book on Poverty and Public Policy

Focusing on issues of particular importance to black people, and confronting the rich variety and the complexity of the black experience, the many contributors demonstrate the broad diversity of research interests and strategies among black psychologists, from the traditional to the innovative. Topics covered include studies of motivation, cognitive development, life-span development, and cultural difference versus deficit theories. Many of the studies directly refute previous conceptions of the psychological functioning of blacks and offer alternative models and formulations.

This book is the first to present soundly designed and executed research that is emphatically linked to the perspectives and the psychological concerns of black Americans. In designing these studies, the authors aimed to ameliorate the pressing educational and social problems of blacks through a better understanding of their life conditions.

A. WADE BOYKIN is associate professor of psychology at Cornell University and associate editor of the Journal of Black Psychology.

ANDERSON J. FRANKLIN is associate professor of clinical psychology in the Graduate Center and at City College of the City University of New York.

J. FRANK YATES is associate professor of psychology at the University of Michigan.

CONTRIBUTORS:  John D. Bacon,  W. Curtis Banks,  Oscar Barbarin, A. Wade Boykin,  Michael Cole,  O. Jackson Cole,  William Collins,  William E. Cross Jr.,  Herman W. Dorsett,  Ozzie L. Edwards,  Anderson J. Franklin,  Lenora Fulani, William S. Hall,  Algea . Harrison,  Janet L. Hubbart,  James S. Jackson,  Ronald M. Jennings,  James M. Jones,  Yvonne B. Kelley, Gregory V. McQuater, Lillian Patterson,  John Peterson,  Diane S. Pollard,  Stephen Reder,  James E. Savage,  Sandra A. Sims,  Anita D. Stearns,  Ewart A. C. Thomas,  M. Belinda Tucker, Janet Williams, Carl O. Word,  J. Frank Yates.

One in four American adults doesn’t have a bank account. Low-income families lack access to many of the basic financial services middle-class families take for granted and are particularly susceptible to financial emergencies, unemployment, loss of a home, and uninsured medical problems. Insufficient Funds explores how institutional constraints and individual decisions combine to produce this striking disparity and recommends policies to help alleviate the problem.

Mainstream financial services are both less available and more expensive for low-income households. High fees, minimum-balance policies, and the relative scarcity of banks in poor neighborhoods are key factors. Michael Barr reports the results of an in-depth study of financial behavior in 1,000 low- and moderate-income families in metropolitan Detroit. He finds that most poor households have bank accounts, but combine use of mainstream services with alternative options such as money orders, pawnshops, and payday lenders. Barr suggests that a tax credit for banks serving primarily disadvantaged customers could facilitate greater equality in the private financial sector.

Drawing on evidence from behavioral economics, Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir show that low-income individuals exhibit many of the same patterns and weaknesses in financial decision making as middle-class individuals and could benefit from many of the same financial aids. They argue that savings programs that automatically enroll participants and require them to actively opt out in order to leave the program could drastically increase savings ability. Ronald Mann demonstrates that significant changes in the credit market over the past fifteen years have allowed companies to expand credit to a larger share of low-income families. Mann calls for regulations on credit card companies that would require greater disclosure of actual interest rates and fees. Raphael Bostic and Kwan Lee find that while home ownership has risen dramatically over the past twenty years, elevated risks for low-income families—such as foreclosure—may well outweigh the benefits of owning a home.

The authors ultimately argue that if we want to demand financial responsibility from low-income households, we have an obligation to assure that these families have access to the banking, credit, and savings institutions that are readily available to higher-income families. Insufficient Funds highlights where and how access is blocked and shows how government policy and individual decisions could combine to eliminate many of these barriers in the future.

REBECCA M. BLANK is the Robert S. Kerr Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

MICHAEL S. BARR is professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.

CONTRIBUTORS: Raphael W. Bostic, Daryl Collins, Kwan Ok Lee, Ronald J. Mann, Jonathan Morduch, Sendhil Mullainathan, Una Okonkwo Osili, Anna L. Paulson, Daniel Schneider, John Karl Scholz, Ananth Seshadri, Eldar Shafir, Michael Sherraden, Peter Tufano.

A Volume in the National Poverty Center Series on Poverty and Public Policy

During the 1970s, a nationwide school finance reform movement—fueled by litigation challenging the constitutionality of state education funding laws—brought significant changes to the way many states finance their public elementary and secondary school systems. School finance reform poses difficult philosophical questions: what is the meaning of equality in educational opportunity and of equity in the distribution of tax burdens? But it also involves enormous financial complexity (for example, dividing resources among competing special programs) and political risk (such as balancing local control with the need for statewide parity).

For those states (like New York) that were slow to make changes a new decade has brought new constraints and complications. Sluggish economic growth, taxpayer revolts, reductions in federal aid, all affect education revenues. And the current concern with educational excellence may obscure the needs of the poor and educationally disadvantaged.

This book will provide New York’s policy makers and other concerned specialists with a better understanding of the political, economic, and equity issues underlying the school finance reform debate. It details existing inequities, evaluates current financing formulas, and presents options for change. Most important, for all those concerned with education and public policy in New York and elsewhere, it offers a masterful assessment of the trade-offs involved in developing reform programs that balance the conflicting demands of resource equalization, political feasibility, and fiscal responsibility.

"Synthesizes the political and fiscal research [on school finance reform] and applies it to the New York Context....A blueprint for how to redesign state school finance....A fine book." —Public Administration Review

"This is a book that lucidly discusses the issues in school finance and provides valuable reference material." —American Political Science Review

The late JOEL S. BERKE was director of the Education Policy Research Institute of Educational Testing
Service.

MARGARET E. GOERTZ is policy research scientist at Educational Testing Service.

RICHARD COLEY is research associate at Educational Testing Service.

Globalization, technological change, and deregulation have made the American marketplace increasingly competitive in recent decades, but for many workers this “new economy” has entailed heightened job insecurity, lower wages, and scarcer benefits. As the job market has grown more volatile, a variety of labor market intermediaries—organizations that help job seekers find employment—have sprung up, from private temporary agencies to government “One-Stop Career Centers.” In Staircases or Treadmills? Chris Benner, Laura Leete, and Manuel Pastor investigate what approaches are most effective in helping workers to secure jobs with decent wages and benefits, and they provide specific policy recommendations for how job-matching organizations can better serve disadvantaged workers.

Staircases or Treadmills? is the first comprehensive study documenting the prevalence of all types of labor market intermediaries and investigating how these intermediaries affect workers’ employment opportunities. Benner, Leete, and Pastor draw on years of research in two distinct regional labor markets—“old economy” Milwaukee and “new economy” Silicon Valley—including a first-of-its-kind random survey of the prevalence and impacts of intermediaries, and a wide range of interviews with intermediary agencies’ staff and clients. One of the main obstacles that disadvantaged workers face is that social networks of families and friends are less effective in connecting job-seekers to stable, quality employment. Intermediaries often serve as a substitute method for finding a job.  Which substitute is chosen, however, matters: The authors find that the most effective organizations—including many unions, community colleges, and local non-profits—actively foster contacts between workers and employers, tend to make long-term investments in training for career development, and seek to transform as well as satisfy market demands. But without effective social networks to help workers locate the best intermediaries, most rely on private temporary agencies and other organizations that offer fewer services and, statistical analysis shows, often channel their participants into jobs with low wages and few benefits. Staircases or Treadmills? suggests that, to become more effective, intermediary organizations of all types need to focus more on training workers, teaching networking skills, and fostering contact between workers and employers in the same industries.

A generation ago, rising living standards were broadly distributed and coupled with relatively secure employment. Today, many Americans fear that heightened job insecurity is overshadowing the benefits of dynamic economic growth. Staircases or Treadmills? is a stimulating guide to how private and public job-matching institutions can empower disadvantaged workers to share in economic progress.

CHRIS BENNER is assistant professor of urban and economic geography at Pennsylvania State University.

LAURA LEETE is the Fred H. Paulus Director of Public Policy Research and associate professor of economics and public policy at Willamette University.

MANUEL PASTOR is a professor of geography and American Studies and ethnicity at the University of Southern California.

Over the past eight years, a marked shift in the national political mood has substantially reduced the federal government's involvement in ameliorating urban problems and enhanced the prominence of state and local governments in the domestic policy arena. Many states and big cities have been forced to reassess their traditionally vexed relationships.

Nowhere has this drama been played out more stormily than in New York. In The Two New Yorks, experts from government, the academy, and the non-profit sector examine aspects of an interaction that has a major impact on the performance of state and city institutions. The analyses presented here explore current state-city strategies for handling such troubling policy areas as education, health care, and housing. Attention is also given to important contextual factors such as economic and demographic trends, and to structural features such as the political framework, relationships with the national government, and the system of public finance.

Despite its uniquely large scope, the drama of the new New Yorks parallels or presages issues faced by virtually all large cities and their states. This unprecedented study makes a vital contribution in an era of declining federal aid and pressing urban need.

GERALD BENJAMIN is at SUNY New Paltz.

CHARLES BRECHER is at New York University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Richard D. Alba, Mary Jo Bane, Gerald Benjamin, Robert Berne, Susan Blamk, Barbara B. Blum, Matthew Drennan, Barbara Gordon Espejo, Ester Fuchs, Cynthia B. Green, James M. Hartman, Raymond D. Horton, Sarah F. Liebschutz, David Lewin, Irene Lurie, Paul D. Moore, James C. Musselwhite Jr., Martin Shefter, Kenneth E. Thorpe, Emanuel Tobier, Katherine Trent, 

How are human subjects treated in biomedical research? What are the expressed standards and self-reported behavior of biomedical researchers in regard to what has sometimes been called their “animal of necessity”? What are some of the determinants of the “strict” and “permissive” patterns which describe the standards and behavior of biomedical researchers? These are the important questions asked and answered in Research on Human Subjects. It is a book based on four years of intensive research. Two studies were completed, one on a nationally representative sample of biomedical research institutions, a second on a sample of 350 researchers who actually use human subjects.

In their chapters on “the dilemma of science and therapy,” the authors look at the tension between the values of humane therapy and discovery in science. They show that the significant minority of researchers who are “permissive” on the issues of informed consent and a favorable risk-benefit ratio are more likely to be those who are “relative failures” in pursuing the science value.

Research on Human Subjects also documents the inadequate training that biomedical researchers get in the ethics of research on human subjects not only in medical schools but in their postgraduate training as well. The medical schools pay relatively more attention to the scientific training of their students than they do to the ethical training that should be its essential complement.

The local peer review groups that screen research on human subjects in the institutions where it is carried on are another central focus of attention of the research and analysis reported in this book. The peer review groups do a fairly good job but, the authors show, there are various conditions of their relative efficacy which are not met by review groups in many important research institutions. The medical school review groups, for example, have not been outstanding performers with respect to the several conditions of relative efficacy.

In the concluding chapter, the authors discuss the general problem of the social responsibilities of powerful professions and make very specific suggestions for policy change and reform for the biomedical research profession and its use of human subjects.

BERNARD BARBER is on the Barnard College and Graduate Faculties of Columbia University.

JOHN J. LALLY is at Lehman College, CUNY.

JULIA LOUGHLIN MAKARUSHKA is at Barnard College, Columbia University.

DANIEL SULLIVAN, formerly of Barnard College, now teaches at Carleton College.

Over the last forty years, rising national income has helped reduce poverty rates, but this has been accompanied by an increase in economic inequality. While these trends are largely attributed to technological change and demographic shifts, such as changing birth rates, labor force patterns, and immigration, public policies have also exerted a profound affect on the welfare of Americans. In Public Policy and the Income Distribution, editors Alan Auerbach, David Card, and John Quigley assemble a distinguished roster of policy analysts to confront the key questions about the role of government policy in altering the level and distribution of economic well being.

Public Policy and the Income Distribution tackles many of the most difficult and intriguing questions about how government intervention—or lack thereof—has affected the incomes of everyday Americans. Rebecca Blank analyzes welfare reform, and presents systematic research on income, poverty rates, and welfare and labor force participation of single mothers. She finds that single mothers worked more and were less dependent on public assistance following welfare reform, and that low-skilled single mothers had no greater difficulty finding work than others. Timothy Smeeding compares poverty reduction programs in the United States with policies in other developed countries. Poverty and inequality are higher in the United States than in other advanced economies, but Smeeding argues that this is largely a result of policy choices. Poverty rates based on market incomes alone are actually lower in the United States than elsewhere, but government interventions in the United States were less than half as effective at reducing poverty as were programs in the other countries. The most dramatic poverty reduction story of twentieth century America was seen among the elderly, who went from being the age group most likely to live in poverty in the 1960s to the group least likely to be poor at the end of the century. Gary Englehardt and Jonathan Gruber examine the role of policy in alleviating old-age poverty by estimating the impact of Social Security benefits on the income of the elderly poor. They find that the growth in Social Security almost completely explains the large decline in elderly poverty in the United States.

The twentieth century was remarkable in the extent to which advances in public policy helped improve the economic well being of Americans. Synthesizing existing knowledge on the effectiveness of public policy and contributing valuable new research,Public Policy and the Income Distribution examines public policy's successes, and points out the areas in which progress remains to be made.

ALAN J. AUERBACH is Robert D. Burch Professor of Economics and Law at the University of California, Berkeley.

DAVID CARD is Class of 1950 Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley.

JOHN M. QUIGLEY is I. Donald Terner Distinguished Professor and professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley.

CONTRIBUTORS: Rebecca M. Blank,  Dora L. Costa,  Janet Currie,  Gary V. Engelhardt,  Jonathan Gruber,  Matthew E. Kahn, Steven Raphael,  Emmanuel Saez,  Jonathan Skinner,  Timothy M. Smeeding,  Weiping Zhou.   

This study contains fifty-eight documents from forty-nine different foundations, selected to represent a wide variety of these organizations. Included are documents from at least one perpetuity, dissolving fund, discretionary perpetuity; at least one company-sponsored foundation, family foundation, foundation engaged in unrelated business activities, association of foundations, "captive" foundation; at least one research foundation, special-purpose foundation, community trust scholarship fund. Several documents have been included for historical interest; documents of two foreign foundations for their comparison values. A final chapter introduces certain operational documents: grant notification form, agreement with consultants, outline for grant applicants, publication agreement.

F. Emerson Andrews was director of publications at the Russell Sage Foundation.

CONTRIBUTORS: James Coleman, James Davis, Beverly Duncan, Otis Dudley Duncan, Mark Evans, David L. Featherman, Robert M. Hauser, Kenneth C. Land, Judah Matras, David D. McFarland, Aage B. Sorenson, Seymour Spilerman, Arthur Stinchcombe, Richard Stone, Kermit Terrell, Donald J. Treiman, James Wendt, H.H. Winsborough.