Well, it's done.
After eight years blessed with the opportunities to work for the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, work with many students and good colleagues, and make many great friends, I've left to pursue a new opportunity in a new country at the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne. My first day was Monday.
Moves involve some disruption, but this one comes at a good time. My two sons completed great educations in Greensboro's public schools. The oldest has gone on to graduate from UNC Chapel Hill, and the youngest is pursuing a joint degree that will take him to Scotland for the next two years. Neither is home, and so the disruption is mostly limited to my wife and me.
And it's for a tremendous opportunity at a top university in a fantastic city. My research (my actual job) focuses on quantitative analyses of household outcomes, and the Melbourne Institute is home to a tremendous survey that has followed each member of about 7,000 Australian families yearly since 2001 as well as a newer survey that has followed about 2,000 people who were either homeless or at high risk of homelessness semi-annually for three years. These are data resources that just can't be beat, and the chance to work with them and the 40-odd researchers who are part of Institute is exciting. Over the past few years, I've been lucky to be able to collaborate with researchers in the Institute, and now I'll be able to work with them full time.
Melbourne itself is also gorgeous, with wonderful restaurants, theaters, and museums. It's also right up against several great Australian wine regions. When I get a break from work, there is a lot to explore.
I'll miss Greensboro but hope to visit.
Cheers.
Showing posts with label my other job. Show all posts
Showing posts with label my other job. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Monday, January 28, 2013
Experimental evidence on discrimination against gay men and lesbians
Do gay men and lesbians face discrimination when applying for jobs? A Swedish experiment that was just published in the Southern Economic Journal indicates that they do.
In the experiment, researchers sent made-up e-mail inquiries to job openings throughout Sweden. The e-mail inquiries were identical--same wording and same age, schooling, occupation-specific experience, and surname for the fictitious candidates--except they randomly had a man's or woman's first name (Erik or Maria) and randomly included cues about the person's sexual orientation. E-mails meant to indicate heterosexual men mentioned having a wife, while e-mails for gay men mentioned a husband. Similar references to different- or same-sex spouses were constructed for heterosexual women and lesbians. Cues about sexual orientation were reinforced by a mention of participation in a civic activity (Swedish Red Cross for heterosexuals, Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights for gay men and lesbians). The researchers then tracked the responses to the inquiries.
Overall, 30 percent of the fictitious e-mails sent on behalf of heterosexual male candidates and 32 percent of the e-mails sent on behalf of heterosexual female candidates got a positive response--either an invitation to interview or an outright job offer. In contrast, only 26 percent of the e-mails sent on behalf of gay men and lesbians generated positive responses.
In the experiment, researchers sent made-up e-mail inquiries to job openings throughout Sweden. The e-mail inquiries were identical--same wording and same age, schooling, occupation-specific experience, and surname for the fictitious candidates--except they randomly had a man's or woman's first name (Erik or Maria) and randomly included cues about the person's sexual orientation. E-mails meant to indicate heterosexual men mentioned having a wife, while e-mails for gay men mentioned a husband. Similar references to different- or same-sex spouses were constructed for heterosexual women and lesbians. Cues about sexual orientation were reinforced by a mention of participation in a civic activity (Swedish Red Cross for heterosexuals, Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights for gay men and lesbians). The researchers then tracked the responses to the inquiries.
Overall, 30 percent of the fictitious e-mails sent on behalf of heterosexual male candidates and 32 percent of the e-mails sent on behalf of heterosexual female candidates got a positive response--either an invitation to interview or an outright job offer. In contrast, only 26 percent of the e-mails sent on behalf of gay men and lesbians generated positive responses.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Getting Subsidized Food All Over Your Family
The U.S. federal government funds several large food assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), and the Supplemental (WIC). In FY 2011, the federal costs for these programs were $75.3 billion, $11.3 billion, $3.0 billion, and $7.2 billion, respectively. The programs all share a common goal of helping disadvantaged people get access to more nutritious food than they could otherwise afford, but the programs differ in how they try to achieve that goal. The SNAP increases food resources for entire families, while the other programs only benefit specific members. In particular, the NSLP and SBP are targeted at school children, and WIC is targeted at infants, very young children, and pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women.
A natural question regarding the targeted programs (natural to an economist anyway) is "do they benefit other members of a household?" Consider the WIC program. WIC provides its beneficiaries with vouchers that can be used for specific foods--for example, juice, milk, regular cereal, eggs and legumes for beneficiaries who are young children or mothers. In a household that also includes older children, it's possible (and maybe even reasonable to expect) that those children might consume some of the food that was intended for their mother or younger siblings.
The SBP and NSLP programs are different in that they serve meals outside the home and directly to their beneficiaries, so other household members can't literally take the food out of the school children's mouths. However, families can redirect resources. If participating families would have otherwise spent money on school-day breakfasts or lunches for their children, they could redirect that money to other members' food consumption.
A UNCG Ph.D. student, Jonathan Woodward, and I received a small grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to look at these issues, using 2002-3 survey data from the Child Development Supplement (CDS) of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The CDS is really helpful in this regard because it asked 1,744 children aged 10 or older about the foods they usually ate for breakfast and the foods that they had eaten in all meals during the previous week. The CDS and the PSID also asked about households' participation in each of the food assistance programs described above and about other economic and demographic characteristics of the households.
Results from Jonathan's and my research were just published in the open-access journal, Food and Nutrition Sciences. We found evidence that was consistent with targeted food assistance being shared. Specifically, school children who had mothers or younger siblings who received WIC reported drinking more milk and eating more cereal (foods that are in the WIC basket) for breakfast than other school children but also reported eating less toast (a food that isn't in the WIC basket). School children also benefited from the programs that were supposed to help them, generally eating more if they got school meals or if their families received SNAP.
An implication from this research is that it is really hard to target benefits for specific family members. In the case of WIC, we might consider whether it's really worth operating a separate program to do this or whether we should just fold the program into the larger SNAP. Merging the programs would allow for administrative efficiencies for the government and for households. Part of the cost savings could be used to expand benefits and participation among the intended recipients of WIC (WIC isn't able to help all eligible mothers and children now). Part of the savings could also go to deficit reduction. Families would also probably appreciate this because it would give them more flexibility in purchasing food.
A natural question regarding the targeted programs (natural to an economist anyway) is "do they benefit other members of a household?" Consider the WIC program. WIC provides its beneficiaries with vouchers that can be used for specific foods--for example, juice, milk, regular cereal, eggs and legumes for beneficiaries who are young children or mothers. In a household that also includes older children, it's possible (and maybe even reasonable to expect) that those children might consume some of the food that was intended for their mother or younger siblings.
The SBP and NSLP programs are different in that they serve meals outside the home and directly to their beneficiaries, so other household members can't literally take the food out of the school children's mouths. However, families can redirect resources. If participating families would have otherwise spent money on school-day breakfasts or lunches for their children, they could redirect that money to other members' food consumption.
A UNCG Ph.D. student, Jonathan Woodward, and I received a small grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to look at these issues, using 2002-3 survey data from the Child Development Supplement (CDS) of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The CDS is really helpful in this regard because it asked 1,744 children aged 10 or older about the foods they usually ate for breakfast and the foods that they had eaten in all meals during the previous week. The CDS and the PSID also asked about households' participation in each of the food assistance programs described above and about other economic and demographic characteristics of the households.
Results from Jonathan's and my research were just published in the open-access journal, Food and Nutrition Sciences. We found evidence that was consistent with targeted food assistance being shared. Specifically, school children who had mothers or younger siblings who received WIC reported drinking more milk and eating more cereal (foods that are in the WIC basket) for breakfast than other school children but also reported eating less toast (a food that isn't in the WIC basket). School children also benefited from the programs that were supposed to help them, generally eating more if they got school meals or if their families received SNAP.
An implication from this research is that it is really hard to target benefits for specific family members. In the case of WIC, we might consider whether it's really worth operating a separate program to do this or whether we should just fold the program into the larger SNAP. Merging the programs would allow for administrative efficiencies for the government and for households. Part of the cost savings could be used to expand benefits and participation among the intended recipients of WIC (WIC isn't able to help all eligible mothers and children now). Part of the savings could also go to deficit reduction. Families would also probably appreciate this because it would give them more flexibility in purchasing food.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
What me hungry?
After a wait of far too many years (maybe a topic for another post), a study that Craig Gundersen and I conducted on "Food Insecurity and Insufficiency at Low Levels of Food Expenditures" has been published in the Review of Income and Wealth.
In the fall of each year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture releases a report on food insecurity in the U.S. that describes the prevalence of food problems. News outlets take this report and publish stories on the extent of hunger. For example, this year MSNBC reported
The primary food insecurity measure is constructed from responses to 10 to 18 survey questions that people are asked (10 questions if no children live in the household, and 18 questions otherwise). The questions ask about problems of increasing severity from
Craig and I were interested in how well the measures actually captured food problems. In particular, several of the questions leave room for subjective judgements (for example, how often is "often"). Respondents may also be embarrassed to report problems to interviewers. In addition, respondents may simply forget about problems that they experienced several months ago.
The survey that USDA uses to measure food insecurity also asks people about other, more objective, and more recent food outcomes, including the amounts that they spent on food in the previous week and in a usual week. Craig and I figured that the amounts that people spent on food should be correlated with their reports of food insecurity and that people with very, very low levels of food spending should report high (actually nearly ubiquitous levels) of food insecurity.
What we found was surprising.
Food insecurity and food expenditures are negatively related, as you would expect. However, the correlation is astonishingly weak. Among people in low-income households, the absolute value of the correlation between food insecurity and weekly food expenditures scaled by household size or food needs is less than 10 percent.
More surprising still, when we focus on households with low incomes and very low levels of food expenditures (e.g., expenditures below half of what the USDA says is the minimum recommended healthy amount for a household), less than 40 percent report being food insecure. In fact, at no point along an objectively-scaled food expenditure distribution do people report food insecurity rates much above 50 percent.
We run some follow-up analyses that indicate that the food expenditure and food needs measures are reliable. We also re-examine the relationships for groups where we can rule out other types of reporting problems. The analyses lead us to the conclusion that the weakness lies in the food insecurity measure itself.
The particular problem is the food insecurity is much likely higher among some especially disadvantaged groups than the reported statistics indicate. As we state at the end of the article,
In the fall of each year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture releases a report on food insecurity in the U.S. that describes the prevalence of food problems. News outlets take this report and publish stories on the extent of hunger. For example, this year MSNBC reported
The percentage of U.S. households where adults sometimes go hungry or are unable to put enough food on the table declined last year, United States Department of Agriculture figures released on Wednesday showed.The food insecurity measures are also used by advocacy groups and the government to describe the needs of households and the effectiveness of assistance programs.
The primary food insecurity measure is constructed from responses to 10 to 18 survey questions that people are asked (10 questions if no children live in the household, and 18 questions otherwise). The questions ask about problems of increasing severity from
We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?the least severe condition to
In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)the most severe condition. People who answer three or more of the questions affirmatively ("sometimes" or "often" to the frequency questions and "yes" to the yes/no questions) are classified as food insecure, "meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members."
Craig and I were interested in how well the measures actually captured food problems. In particular, several of the questions leave room for subjective judgements (for example, how often is "often"). Respondents may also be embarrassed to report problems to interviewers. In addition, respondents may simply forget about problems that they experienced several months ago.
The survey that USDA uses to measure food insecurity also asks people about other, more objective, and more recent food outcomes, including the amounts that they spent on food in the previous week and in a usual week. Craig and I figured that the amounts that people spent on food should be correlated with their reports of food insecurity and that people with very, very low levels of food spending should report high (actually nearly ubiquitous levels) of food insecurity.
What we found was surprising.
Food insecurity and food expenditures are negatively related, as you would expect. However, the correlation is astonishingly weak. Among people in low-income households, the absolute value of the correlation between food insecurity and weekly food expenditures scaled by household size or food needs is less than 10 percent.
More surprising still, when we focus on households with low incomes and very low levels of food expenditures (e.g., expenditures below half of what the USDA says is the minimum recommended healthy amount for a household), less than 40 percent report being food insecure. In fact, at no point along an objectively-scaled food expenditure distribution do people report food insecurity rates much above 50 percent.
We run some follow-up analyses that indicate that the food expenditure and food needs measures are reliable. We also re-examine the relationships for groups where we can rule out other types of reporting problems. The analyses lead us to the conclusion that the weakness lies in the food insecurity measure itself.
The particular problem is the food insecurity is much likely higher among some especially disadvantaged groups than the reported statistics indicate. As we state at the end of the article,
Our findings that food hardships are under-reported at the low end of the expenditure distribution should be disquieting to researchers and policymakers. The data may be masking genuine distress among the disadvantaged households, and the modest relationship with food expenditures may mean that the food insecurity and insufficiency measures will have difficulty registering increases in well-being from policy innovations and economic improvements.Hopefully, this will give USDA something to chew on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)