The Century Foundation has released a new report, “Doing More for Our Children,” by a Columbia University research team that includes RSF scholars and grantees Irwin Garfinkel, Jane Waldfogel, and Christopher Wimer, with David Harris.

In their study, the authors explored policy measures for fighting child poverty in the United States, which they called “stubbornly high, with more than 12 million American children—16.5 percent of all children—currently living in poverty.” They modeled five child allowance policies and five Childhood Tax Credit (CTC) policies to examine their impact on the child poverty rate, number of children in poverty, cost and marginal cost (based on the current CTC). The authors found that a universal child allowance of $4,000 a year would cut child poverty in the U.S. in half, while a more modest $2,500 universal child allowance would more than triple the anti-poverty effect of the current Child Tax Credit (CTC).

“Policymakers could substantially reduce the child poverty rate, if they were willing to commit to a universal child allowance,” the authors said. “An expanded CTC with a more generous phase in rate would also meaningfully reduce poverty among children and families.”

Key findings from the report include:

• Providing a child allowance of $2,500 to all children under age 6 (leaving intact the CTC for children age 6 and above) would lift 3.2 million children out of poverty.
• Investing in a universal child allowance that provides $2,500 per child for all families with children (age 0–17) would lift 5.5 million children out of poverty—more than triple the antipoverty effect of the current CTC.
• A universal child allowance of $4,000 per child (age 0–17) would cut child poverty in half and lift 8.1 million children out of poverty.
• While the current CTC plays an important antipoverty role, it does little to assist children living in deep poverty (because it is linked to work), but a $4,000 child allowance would reduce the deep poverty rate by almost two-thirds.
• A dollar invested in a universal child allowance would do more to reduce child poverty than a dollar spent on an expanded child tax credit.

In late 2014, President Obama announced two new executive actions concerning undocumented immigrants, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). While immigrant rights advocates have argued that both programs—which create paths for qualifying noncitizens to avoid deportation and receive work permits—could deliver much-needed relief to vulnerable segments of the population, legal opposition from Texas and twenty-five other states has suspended their implementation. The fates of DACA and DAPA now rest with the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear the case, United States v. Texas, in April 2016.

In preparation for the court case, First Focus, a bipartisan child and family advocacy organization, and a number of other education and children’s advocacy groups have filed a new amicus brief on how the implementation of the DACA and DAPA programs will “help promote the healthy development of the over five million children living in mixed-status families in the United States.” The brief cites a range of RSF-funded research on immigration, the labor market, and inequality, including trustee Hiro Yoshikawa’s RSF book Immigrants Raising Citizens—which provides an in-depth look at the challenges undocumented immigrants face as they raise children in the U.S.—and former Visiting Scholar Sean Reardon’s chapter from the RSF book Whither Opportunity, which shows that parents’ socioeconomic status is one of the strongest predictors of children’s academic achievement. As the brief points out, issuing work authorization to undocumented parents can be expected to raise their wages by 6-10 percent.

A new report summarizes the findings of immigration research funded by the Russell Sage Foundation and conducted by a team of scholars at the University of California, Irvine over the course of eighteen months.

Between January 2014 and September 2015, Susan Coutin and colleagues investigated the uncertainties surrounding two immigration-related “Executive Relief” programs, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA). While DACA and DAPA would have allowed qualifying noncitizens to avoid deportation and receive federal work authorization starting in 2015, legal challenges prevented them from taking effect, leaving eligible undocumented immigrants in legal limbo.

Drawing from 16 in-depth interviews with staff of 10 different immigrant serving organizations and 47 interviews with noncitizens in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas, the authors captured the on-the-ground challenges facing noncitizens and community based organizations as the scope and availability of DACA and DAPA were debated. Their report explores the hardships and barriers to incorporation imposed by ambiguous legal status, the challenges faced by organizations mediating between their constituents and the state in periods of legal uncertainty, and the ways that uncertainty has reshaped the social, political and legal environment in which immigrant-serving organizations and their constituents interact.

This feature is part of an ongoing RSF blog series, Work in Progress, which highlights some of the research of our current class of Visiting Scholars.

While the race for the Republican presidential nomination has intensified between leading candidates Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio over the last few weeks, all three candidates have at least one thing in common: a plan to cut taxes. For decades, Republican policymakers across the nation have championed tax cuts for individuals and businesses alike as a means of invigorating a sluggish economy. But at what point did this ideology become central to the GOP’s platform?

Visiting Scholar Monica Prasad (Northwestern University) is working on a book that explores the origins of the tax-cut movement, looking at how the decline of progressive taxation in the U.S. contributed to the revitalization of the Republican Party in the aftermath of Watergate. She is researching how the decline of progressive taxation and an unwillingness on the part of the political system to tolerate high tax rates on the wealthy has contributed to rising inequality. Using recently released archival sources, she will focus on the importance of tax cuts to the conservative resurgence, an issue that has been understudied in previous literature.

In a new interview with the Foundation, Prasad explained the historical factors that led to the Republican Party’s modern-day embrace of tax cuts.

Q. Your current research examines the historical factors that led to the Republican Party making tax cuts a central part of their economic platform in the 1980s, a position that continues to this day. How did Republicans tend to address taxes prior to this point? Were business elites influential in pushing tax cuts to the fore of the GOP agenda?

The Roosevelt Institute and the Kauffman Foundation have jointly released a new e-book, The Good Economy, co-authored by Russell Sage Foundation trustee and Roosevelt Senior Fellow Bo Cutter, Kauffman Vice President Dane Stangler, and Council on Foreign Relations Adjunct Senior Fellow Robert Litan. The book explores different economic scenarios facing the United States and describes a future in which innovation could produce the strongest economic boom since the 1950s while also promoting broader opportunity and equity.

The Good Economy envisions an economic resurgence beginning in 2020 driven by factors such as the continued growth of freelancing platforms like Uber and Etsy coupled with the development of new advances like nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. The authors further forecast the rise of a new political dynamic as the federal government breaks free from political paralysis and cities and states serve as hubs of experimentation. However, they also caution that without a comprehensive overhaul of business, labor rights, government spending and other issues, such shifts would entail more risk and instability for workers.

“By 2040, our definitions of ‘work’ and ‘job’ may be very different,” said Cutter. “Changes in the economy could force average workers to become entrepreneurs, making use of new technologies and services to acquire skills and opportunities while taking on more responsibility for their own health care and retirement.” But, he added, “if they can manage the transition, they will be able to find more work even as more jobs become automated.”