Search results

I examine trends in the material well-being of working-class households using data from the Current Population Survey in the two decades surrounding the Great Recession. In the years leading up to the Great Recession, average earnings, homeownership, and insurance coverage all fell, and absolute poverty and food insecurity accelerated. After-tax incomes were, for the most part, stagnant. The economic hemorrhaging either abated or reversed, however, in the decade after the Great Recession, especially for the least skilled and for households headed by a Hispanic person. This includes robust earnings growth, which led to declines in earnings inequality, absolute poverty, and food insecurity, coupled with increased insurance coverage and a modest rebound in after-tax incomes. As many of these recent advances likely stalled with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, I discuss various policy options.

AbstractI compare the extent of food hardships in the United States among adults and seniors before and during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Food insufficiency increased threefold compared to 2019, and more than doubled relative to the Great Recession. Food insufficiency among seniors increased 75% during the COVID period, but more than doubled when including reduced intake of food varieties. Receipt of charitable foods among disadvantaged adults spiked 50% in the COVID period, but the initial response among seniors was a sharp reduction, before rising. These patterns are consistent with strong social distancing measures enacted in response to the pandemic.

This article sifts the evidence to explain why welfare caseloads have fallen so markedly in the US since 1993. In particular, it seeks to explain the discrepancy between studies that identify welfare reform as the principal explanatory factor and those that emphasise the buoyant economy. Analyses that prioritise welfare are shown to be mis-specified while a comparative analysis of all 51 states shows a strong link between welfare trends and macroeconomic performance. The expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit has also contributed to the fall in welfare caseloads.

AbstractSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the cornerstone food assistance program in the United States and has been shown to reduce the risk of food insecurity. Most research on the causal effect of SNAP on food insecurity relies on the 12‐month food insecurity scale along with usage of SNAP at any point during the year. However, recent social surveys ask about experiences with food insecurity in the 30 days prior to the survey. In this paper, we examine whether similar protective effects of SNAP against food insecurity are obtained whether using the 30‐day or 12‐month food insecurity scale using the December Supplement of the Current Population Survey for 2002–2019. Results indicate comparable average treatment effects of SNAP in mitigating food insecurity across both 30‐day and 12‐month reference periods.

A combination of demographic aging and diversification, volatile business cycle conditions, stagnant real wages, declining employment, and policy choices have increased the need to examine the adequacy of the U.S. social safety net. Is it accomplishing what it is designed to do? Can it weather a fiscal storm? Current "entitlement" programs are in almost all cases providing important assistance to U.S. families and are improving families' well-being, but they face significant challenges that will require the attention of policy-makers around the country. Some programs may need a structural revamping, while others could do with incremental modifications. Because U.S. entitlement programs address complex social issues, they are themselves complex systems; it follows, then, that meaningful reform must be thoughtful and nuanced, eschewing political expediency. Further, federal support is needed for even more high-quality research that will provide evidence on the types of reforms that will achieve the goals of the programs.

AbstractFood insecurity is now recognized as a major health crisis in the United States. This is due to the size of the problem—more than 42 million persons were food insecure in 2015—as well as the multiple negative health outcomes and higher health care costs attributable to food insecurity. An extensive body of literature from multiple fields has examined the causes and consequences of food insecurity and the efficacy of food assistance programs—especially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We review this literature and provide suggestions for future research directions. We suggest examining the distribution of food insecurity within households, the impact of the food distribution system on food insecurity, the coping mechanisms of low‐income food secure families, food insecurity among American Indians, the effects of charitable food assistance, the causal relationship between food insecurity and health outcomes, the declining age gradient in food insecurity among Seniors, the effects of labor force participation and the Great Recession on food insecurity, and the long‐term consequences of food insecurity. In addition, the impact of two recent policy recommendations on food insecurity – the minimum wage and the Affordable Care – Act should be considered.

In 2012, nearly 16 million U.S. children, or over one in five, lived in households that were food-insecure, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture defines as "a household-level economic and social condition of limited access to food." Even when we control for the effects of other factors correlated with poverty, these children are more likely than others to face a host of health problems, including but not limited to anemia, lower nutrient intake, cognitive problems, higher levels of aggression and anxiety, poorer general health, poorer oral health, and a higher risk of being hospitalized, having asthma, having some birth defects, or experiencing behavioral problems. Many government programs aim explicitly to reduce food insecurity, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). (Other social safety-net programs—for example, the Earned Income Tax Credit—can also help alleviate food insecurity by increasing household income.) The fact that food insecurity remains so high even though the government spent over $100 billion on the various federal food-assistance programs in fiscal year 2012 poses a significant policy challenge. Food insecurity rates remain stubbornly high for a number of reasons. One is that we don't fully understand what causes food insecurity or how food assistance and other programs can help alleviate it. Food insecurity has been researched extensively, and this research has helped policy makers and program administrators better address the problem. However, relatively little research has looked at what causes food insecurity among children in the first place, or the effectiveness of public policies, especially on more severe forms of food hardship. In this policy report, we highlight new research that seeks to fill this gap. Much of this work comes from the Research Program on Childhood Hunger at the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research, which was underwritten by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

We use new PSID data on consumption and health, along with information on annual sick time, to estimate a structural labor supply model that incorporates a health capital stock with the traditional human capital learning-by-doing model. The estimates show strong evidence of learning by doing as well as strong persistence in health. However, the estimates reveal that time and money seem to have little effect on health consistent with 'flat of the curve' medicine. We find strong evidence that consumption and leisure are direct substitutes in preferences, and consumption and leisure are each utility complements with good health.