This project seeks to extend the evidence on welfare policies by examining the long-run effects of a high-impact set of randomized experiments conducted by the nonprofit organization MDRC in the late 1980s and 1990s involving more than 100,000 welfare recipients. This is the first study of its kind to look at the very long-term effects of welfare reform experiments on adult outcomes. In each study, welfare recipients were randomly assigned to either a control, Aid to Families with Dependent Children-like program, or to interventions involving different combinations of job training, job search assistance, financial incentives to work, childcare subsidies, time limits, and/or sanctions. Merging data from these experiments with administrative tax data and other data held at the U.S. Census Bureau, Hoynes will study the long-run impacts of welfare policies on many important outcomes, including earnings and employment, fertility, marriage, mortality, and program participation for adult welfare recipients and, importantly, their children.

This research will assess before and after data in Philadelphia across industries that are and are not subject to the recent scheduling regulation in order to investigate the effectiveness of the policy, including unintentional consequences such as a reduction in the total number of hours offered to an employee. Using a daily diary study conducted via cellphone text message in English and Spanish, the project will survey 1,000 Philadelphia workers in low-wage service occupations who have a young child (ages 2 to 7). It will compare voluntary and involuntary schedule changes by using daily diaries to assess changes in hours and schedules in order to discern not only the frequency and distribution of unpredictability, but also its effect on low-wage parents and children. The results of this study will provide unique, causal information on the potential effects of new scheduling laws on both parents and children.

This research brings together social psychology, epidemiology, and stratification economics using the Health and Retirement Study’s Psychosocial Leave-Behind Questionnaire and Enhanced Face-to-Face Interviews (2006-2012) to investigate whether Blacks’ higher rates of both hypertension and inflammation (as measured by elevated levels of C-reactive protein) can be explained through their higher exposure to psychosocial and economic liabilities, and their limited access to economic resources. Further, this research explores whether this heightened exposure to hypertension and inflammation increases Blacks’ likelihood of early labor force exit (leaving the labor force before 62).

This project will use IRS tax records to study the effects of California’s 2004 paid family leave insurance on labor market and family formation outcomes for both men and women. Byker and Bailey’s research has two significant advantages over the existing literature on paid parental leave in the United States. First, because they are using administrative data, they have an extremely large sample size, which will allow for potentially stronger conclusions than previous studies to date. The large sample size also allows for the study of heterogeneous effects, which has previously been difficult due to data limitations. Second, the long-term longitudinal nature of their panel allows for the first-ever study of long-term policy effects on employment, earnings, fertility, family formation, and other important impacts. This research comes at a time when many states are actively debating public paid family leave policies, and a national-level conversation is ongoing.

Recent research by Raj Chetty and other economists using tax return data has allowed for a deeper understanding of the levels and trends of economic mobility in the United States, but there hasn’t been equivalent data for the analysis of social mobility. This study will develop a new longitudinally linked U.S. Census American Community Survey dataset that will allow for parallel analyses of occupational mobility. This will be an important complement to the recent work on economic mobility that will allow for a richer understanding of what mobility actually looks and feels like for Americans. An analysis of occupational mobility in addition to economic mobility will allow for an analysis of whether individuals trade higher earnings for other occupational traits such as prestige, creating a more nuanced understanding of what opportunity looks like. In addition, the project will advance the literature by decomposing intergenerational occupational mobility by race, migration status, family structure, and type of occupation. This work is part of a larger database creation effort at the U.S. Census Bureau, the American Opportunity Study, which will create a panel that will represent the full U.S. population over the past 70 years, increasing the ability of researchers to use linked census data to study many demographic and economic questions in the later half of the 20th century.

This project will continue an important empirical line of research that uses innovative field-based experimental methods to understand the dynamics of discrimination. The researchers will combine an audit study with a survey of employers. The audit data has significant advantages over past audit studies: It examines a broader range of job openings by using BurningGlass data; examines a larger number of employers and responses to applications; examines a broader range of cities; and examines race by gender and by parental status simultaneously. The researchers will survey employers, focusing on three main areas: personnel policies such as affirmative action, parental leave, and flex time; hiring practices such as the use of technology, referrals, and standardized interview protocols; and the demographics, size, number of locations, and age of the company. This research will directly test several outstanding questions in the literature, particularly the connection between formalization procedures and discrimination, the effectiveness of diversity initiatives, and the role of technology. This project’s findings will provide a more precise assessment of how organizations perpetuate gendered, racial, and parental-status discrimination.