Research Archives - Page 5 of 6 - Evans School of Public Policy & Governance

Cascadia Coastlines and Peoples Hazards Research Hub Launches

The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded a multi-institutional team (the Cascadia Coastlines and Peoples Hazards Research Hub, or Cascadia CoPes Hub) to advance hazards sciences and increase coastal resiliency in Pacific Northwest communities across Northern California, Oregon, and Washington. UW Evans School Professor Ann Bostrom serves as a co-principal investigator.

Why was the Cascadia CoPes Hub Formed?

We’re responding to needs identified locally, regionally, and nationally for improved coastal resilience, particularly in Cascadia, which stretches from Humboldt and Del Norte Counties in California to the Salish Sea. We face a confluence of coastal hazards that include not only three types of earthquakes, but also tsunamis, landslides, and of course sea level rise, changing patterns of storminess, and the increasing risks of intense precipitation due to climate change that can have compounding effects. Concerns about these risks and calls for increasing research on coastal resilience were clearly articulated in the 2017 Ruckelshaus Center Washington State Coast Resilience Assessment report, and the Oregon Resilience Plan of 2013.

The hub also responds to a suite of grand challenges identified in recent years by the National Academies and others, calling for better understanding of the causes and consequences of topographic change, along with more systematic research and better understanding of inclusive science with community engagement, and science communication. We’re grateful to reviewers and NSF for recognizing the value of these scientific endeavors and co-production of science the hub plans in response to these challenges.

What groups live along the Cascade coast? What are some of the environmental issues (and consequences) that our region collectively, and these communities specifically, are facing?

Coastal areas in Cascadia are incredibly diverse! As noted in the Ruckelshaus report’s executive summary, but applicable to all of Cascadia: “The Washington coast and coastal communities are at an extraordinary confluence of cultures, unique ecosystems, influences, and potent threats. The coast is home to several tribes, is a gateway to iconic natural treasures, and the people are stewards of distinctive ecosystems that support shellfish growing fishing, cranberry growing, and timber production.” Intra- and inter-community disparities in residential longevity, economic precarity, and political exclusion are extreme, leading to differences and large variations in hazard preparedness.

Most communities on the Pacific Coast of Cascadia, and many on the Salish Sea, are rural and easily isolated—geographically, economically, and culturally—from urban cores. These communities have maintained place-based identities and cultures, and their stewardship results in natural, social, and cultural capitals, resources, and assets that are important for resilience; indigenous communities have knowledge of coastal processes from time immemorial.

Why do you believe it’s important to engage local communities in environmental hazards research? What is are some examples of the ways you are doing this?

Environmental hazards research has the potential to inform coastal community planning and resilience in very immediate ways. The hub is chock full of projects that we plan to co-develop with collaboratories (specific areas of the coast where the project has the potential to leverage ongoing research and relationships). The hub also includes research broadly relevant across Cascadia, such as better understanding the recurrence rate of megaquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and examining how geological events – like increased sedimentation and erosion – may be affecting biodiversity and the marine ecologies on which coastal communities depend (e.g., shellfish habitat).

The hub also includes environmental hazards research projects focused on integrating diverse epistemologies into hazards mitigation planning and practices – to increase the exchange of information about hazards and resilience between communities with very different ways of knowing. And we have projects and processes, including community liaison leads for each research team in the hub, focused on helping coastal communities integrate new scientific advances into their planning. In addition, the hub will be funding seed grants to bring in new research ideas and projects over the five-year span of its activities.

Another way the hub is engaging local communities is through research co-design and educational engagement. Across Cascadia, Hispanics/Latinos are 14.8% of the population, Blacks/African Americans are 2.3% of the population, and American Indian/Alaska Natives are 1.6% of the population (as defined by the 2019 ACS). Hispanics/Latinos and American Indian/Alaska Natives are underrepresented in both undergraduate and graduate enrollments overall and particularly in science and technology degrees in the universities that are a part of the CoPes Hub; the hub will support hazards science projects and data collection in coastal schools, and actively recruit and support students from these coastal community groups.

Ideally, what would show that CoPes has been successful should a natural disaster like a tsunami or earthquake occur in 25 years?

Ideally, coastal communities would be better prepared than they are now and would bounce back better than ever after such an event! And even more importantly, the intent is for the hub to help communities focus, protect, and develop the assets they value, across time and spatial scales. For example, we know that there are likely issues with “islanding” after hazardous events – that some communities might end up isolated due to damaged infrastructure, including bridges, roads, and communications. If we’re successful, we will help communities find ways to reduce islanding and its risks, so that they are not left stranded without essential supplies or support in the immediate aftermath of a tsunami. Some coastal tribal communities are already beginning the process of moving uphill, away from increasing risks of storm surges and sea level rise, and from the risks of tsunami inundation, which tribal coastal communities have long understood, and others have only begun to better appreciate over the last few decades.

On a broader scale, why should those not living in/near the CSZ care about this research? Where else in the world or in what other aspects could the research and collaboration modeled by CoPes be vital?

Here in Cascadia we have the privilege of living on the Pacific rim ring of fire, as it is called. It’s a magnificent living landscape, even with the “Really Big One” lurking on the horizon. Cascadia CoPes Hub researchers are already collaborating with colleagues in British Columbia, Japan, New Zealand, and Chile – around the Pacific rim – but also with colleagues in other parts of the Americas and the world in productive exchanges of knowledge that will help all of us better understand and plan for the coastal dynamism and climate changes we know are on the horizon and that include increasing risks from extreme hazards.

Coastal populations are among the fastest growing in the world, which only increases the urgency of this work. The hub hopes to leave a legacy not only of more knowledge about the coastal hazards and risks we face in Cascadia, but also advance interdisciplinary hazard analyses, modeling and simulations, and inclusive decision support, community planning processes, and science communication. The hub is dedicated to bringing science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) to coastal communities, and coastal community members into STEAM, training a new generation of hazard and resilience researchers to lead this work forward in the future.

The Cascadia CoPes Hub represent a broad coalition including:

Nearly 50 individuals who participated in writing the grant as active investigators, including:

Peter Ruggiero (Principal Investigator, Oregon State University)
Alison Duvall (Co-Principal Investigator, University of Washington)
Harold Tobin (Co-Principal Investigator, University of Washington and Pacific Northwest Seismic Network)
Dwaine Plaza (Oregon State University)
and other stellar scholars at:
- Oregon State University
- University of Washington
- Washington State University
- The Ruckelshaus Center
- University of Oregon
- Humboldt State University
- the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
- Washington and Oregon Sea Grant
- S. Geological Survey

Nearly two dozen entities who signed letters of collaborative intent, such as:

Oregon State Resilience Office
Surfrider
The Humboldt State Seal Level Rise Initiative
Washington Department of Natural Resources
City of Westport (WA) Public Works Director
Regional tribal representatives

Beyond the Evans School, the UW contingency on the grant includes faculty and researchers in:

Applied Mathematics
School of Public Health
Urban Design and Planning
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Earth and Space Sciences and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network
School of Marine and Environmental Affairs
School of Oceanography
Climate Impacts Group
Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem studies (CICOES – a collaboration of the UW, OSU, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks)
S. Geological Survey and WA Sea Grant collaborators at the UW

The hub builds on strong relationships established by hub members with coastal communities throughout Cascadia, including through the Ruckelshaus Center, and WA Sea Grant, and relationships developed in prior research projects (e.g., Oregon Coastal Futures; NSF-funded Hazards SEES M9; NSF-funded CoPe EAGER, CoPe Research Coordination Network, and PREEVENTS projects at the UW; the HSU Sea Level Rise Initiative; and the WA Coastal Resilience Project).

Self-employment and the Gig Economy: Ben Glasner, Ph.D. ’21

Ben Glasner completed his Ph.D. ’21 at the Evans School with expertise in labor market policy and the gig economy. He took some time from his work as a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia University recently to chat about his dissertation work.

Your dissertation research focused on self-employment and the gig economy – explain why this is such a critical portion of the labor market for scholars and policymakers alike?

Self-employment work arrangements, and specifically work within the gig economy, are becoming increasingly commonplace. Yet, these types of work arrangements often are excluded from labor policy or regulations intended to protect and support workers. As a result, policy tools like the minimum wage are not designed for the self-employed. Workers who are operating simultaneously under multiple firms at a single point in time (e.g., driving for Uber and Lyft simultaneously), or whose hours are prohibitively difficult to track don’t receive the same coverage as a traditional hourly payroll employee who punches a time clock.

Such exclusions are nothing new. When the minimum wage was first introduced through the Fair Labor Standards Act, a number of jobs were not covered and those exclusions meant a significant share of black and female workers were not covered by the first minimum wage laws. Such exclusions remained in place well into the 1960s and were key parts of the civil rights movement.

Today, the remnants of past exclusions persist. We have ended up with a patchwork system of supporting workers. From health care to minimum standards of living, where a person works and how that work is done has important consequences to what protections or benefits they receive. I think the gig economy is really the front line of the debate over social support and the division between efficient labor markets and fair labor markets.

How does your dissertation research extend our understanding of the impact of minimum wage laws?

My dissertation project fills key gaps in the minimum wage literature. One key gap I explored was whether higher minimum wages changed the demand for workers or jobs exempted from minimum wage laws. When minimum wages increase, I find evidence of an increase in participation in the uncovered labor market, but it is driven by urban areas with access to the online gig economy. Another part of my dissertation project examines the question of minimum wage effects on multiple jobholding. The puzzle here is that if minimum wages theoretically could both increase and lower multiple jobholding. My work, however, I found that minimum wages had no significant impact on multiple jobholding in aggregate.

What are the key policy research questions we should be asking to better understand the experiences of workers holding multiple jobs?

Today, I’d say there are two key features about multiple jobholding to explore. One, hours and schedules can be difficult to coordinate between employers, which leads to unstable scheduling. Two, because individuals are more commonly combining earnings from payroll positions with self-employment, some workers may use on-demand “employment” through the gig economy to help fill the gaps of an instable schedule. We don’t know a lot about how workers make decisions about holding multiple jobs or balancing hours across jobs. This is particularly important when we consider the different experience of multiple jobholders with high earnings and those with multiple jobs who still struggle to keep their heads above water.

When you talk to state and local policymakers about raising the minimum wage, what advice or guidance would you give them?

Primarily, I’d encourage policymakers to consider the differences between federal, state, and local minimum wage rates in a given setting. I believe minimum wage increases are a positive tool for improving work outcomes, but they are not the solution to all issues of job quality or underemployment. In fact, minimum wage laws can be rather limited tools because they miss workers who are working in the uncovered or the informal labor market. This often means the most vulnerable workers will not be reached by these policies.

Tell us about what you’ve been up to since finishing your dissertation work.

I have just started a new position as a Postdoctoral Research Scientist with the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. While there I’ll be conducting analyses of the effects of major social policies and reforms on the poverty rate and other indicators of well-being. These analyses will include long-term studies of the intergenerational transmission of poverty, but also studies of contemporary policies and their effects. All the work will be under the great team headed by Irwin Garfinkel, Jane Waldfogel, and Christopher Wimer.

Household Economics and Gender: Veda Patwardhan, Ph.D. ’21

Veda Patwardhan recently finished her Ph.D. (’21) at the Evans School with expertise in household economics and gender. We caught up with her during a break in her day at the Institute for HealthMetrics and Evaluation (IHME) to talk about her dissertation project.

Your dissertation research focuses on how policy interventions and contextual factors shape the roles of women within households in India and Malawi. How did this project emerge over the course of your training at the Evans School?

As a Research Assistant for the Evans Policy Analysis and Research group (EPAR) during my first year as a doctoral student at Evans, I worked on a project conceptualizing the pathways through which empowering female farmers in low and middle-income countries may yield economic benefits. Thinking about the theory behind why gender differences AND inequalities have real consequences for individuals and families piqued a long-term research interest in this area. As that work progressed, I knew I wanted to focus on the intersection of public policy and gender inequality.

I also was motivated by the fact that women’s economic empowerment is an important policy objective internationally. Multi-lateral organizations, foundations, and several governments worldwide are making substantial commitments to gender equality and women’s economic empowerment. Many low and middle-income countries have implemented female-centric social protection and financial inclusion programs. For example, cash transfer schemes, self-help groups, microcredit, bank account provision and public works programs often explicitly target female beneficiaries.

Early in your dissertation, you powerfully note that “control over income is a crucial aspect of women’s economic empowerment.” What were some of the most important insights you discovered about factors shaping how women have control over household income and what having that power means for them and their families?

There are many important findings in my work. One that stands out relates to how the source of household income matters for women’ control over income (WCI). My work in Malawi finds that women have higher sole decision-making for income from public transfer sources like cash and food transfers, as well as remittances, compared with salaries, wages, and farm income. This is very interesting, as research on women’s economic empowerment hasn’t so far considered how the source of household income can really matter for who controls it! My findings in Malawi show women have higher control over transfers than other income sources, even when men are present in the household, suggesting that targeting transfers to women may yield benefits. This also helps unpack why maternal cash transfers like the Mamata Scheme in India (which I examine in another one of my dissertation chapters) have positive effects on children’s health.

This project analyzes data from two quite different settings. How might insights from your dissertation work shape your approach to comparative policy research in the future?

This is a great question. I think that conducting comparative policy research is important for the international development field, as generalizing across regions is difficult and may not always be desirable or accurate. The underlying theme of my work in India and Malawi is similar, but in India, I analyze the effect of a maternal cash transfer program on child outcomes, while my work in Malawi looks at the household and contextual drivers of women’s control over income. Over the course of my dissertation writing, I also realized that analyzing different types of research questions in these two geographies helped solidify my understanding of the existing literature, theoretical perspectives, and research gaps on women’s control over income. I look forward to conducting cross-country analyses in my future research.

What would you say are the biggest takeaways from your work for policymakers and nongovernmental organizations working to empower women in different contexts around the globe?

Policy design is incredibly important. For instance, while examining the impact of a maternal cash transfer scheme in India on child nutrition, I find that children in the poorest households benefit significantly less than those in wealthier households. This suggests that marginalized populations may face obstacles to participation and suggests changes in policy design. For example, policymakers may wish to modify eligibility criteria, or behavioral requirements — such as receiving prenatal care – that could hinder access for marginalized groups.

Paying attention to what drives women’s empowerment is important as well. In Malawi, I find that women’s decision-making over farm income increases following drought. However, this may not reflect an improvement in women’s well-being, if women have a higher workload on the farm and at home. Female farmers tend to have less access to information on climate change and climate-smart-agricultural practices, leading to lower adoption rates compared to men. So, we need policy to recognize the role climatic factors play in women’s farm decision-making. Interventions to improve women’s land tenure security, access to agricultural inputs, and safety nets like cash transfers can play an important role here.

Tell us a little about what’s next for you.

I am excited to start a Postdoctoral Scholar position with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which is a global health research center based at the University of Washington. My work will focus on examining gender inequalities in health.

Coastal Resiliency Research and Education Hub

Ocoasta Elementary School — Ocosta Elementary School in Grays Harbor County, Washington, is home to the first tsunami vertical evacuation center in North America, completed in 2016. NOAA

by Hannah Hickey and Kim Eckart

September 7, 2021. The National Science Foundation has funded a multi-institutional team led by Oregon State University and the University of Washington to work on increasing resiliency among Pacific Northwest coastal communities.

The new Cascadia Coastlines and Peoples Hazards Research Hub will serve coastal communities in Northern California, Oregon and Washington. The hub’s multidisciplinary approach will span geoscience, social science, public policy and community partnerships.

The Pacific Northwest coastline is at significant risk of earthquakes from the Cascadia Subduction Zone, an offshore fault that stretches more than 600 miles from Cape Mendocino in California to southern British Columbia. The region also faces ongoing risks from coastal erosion, regional flooding and rising seas due to climate change.

The newly established Cascadia CoPes Hub, based at OSU, will increase the capacity of coastal communities to adapt through community engagement and co-production of research, and by training a new generation of coastal hazards scientists and leaders from currently underrepresented communities.

The initial award is for $7.2 million over the first two years, with the bulk split between OSU and the UW. The total award, subject to renewals, is $18.9 million over five years.

“This issue requires a regional approach,” said co-principal investigator Ann Bostrom, a UW Evans School professor of public policy and governance. “This new research hub has the potential to achieve significant advances across the hazard sciences — from the understanding of governance systems, to having a four-dimensional understanding of Cascadia faults and how they work, and better understanding the changing risks of compound fluvial-coastal flooding, to new ways of engaging with communities to co-produce research that will be useful for coastal planning and decisions in our region. There are a lot of aspects built into this project that have us all excited.”

The community collaborations, engagement and outreach will focus on five areas: Humboldt County, California; greater Coos Bay, Oregon; Newport to Astoria, Oregon; Tokeland to Taholah, Washington; and from Everett to Bellingham, Washington.

Read the full story on UW News.

Sharing Power?

The Landscape of Participatory Practices & Grantmaking Among Large U.S. Foundations

The COVID-19 pandemic and fights for racial justice highlighted questions about whether mission-driven organizations can effectively deliver on their social impact goals without engaging with the communities that they seek to impact. Philanthropic foundations, in particular, have come under scrutiny amidst recent and growing concerns about their undemocratic nature and shrouded grant-making processes.

Philanthropic foundations in the United States hold significant power in the policy landscape, as they can both define societal challenges and determine the manner in which those challenges are addressed. The work of foundations is tax subsidized, but they are held to few standards of accountability, leading to increasing calls for foundations to shift their power to affected communities, to democratize decision-making through greater stakeholder participation, and to be more accountable to those whose lives they affect.

As part of the University of Washington Philanthropy Project, Evans School researchers Kelly Husted, Emily Finchum-Mason, and David Suárez sought to understand how large philanthropic foundations – with substantial assets and power – engage the people they serve in their governance and grant-making policies and practices. They launched a survey of the 500 largest private and community foundations in the United States between May and December 2020 to answer this question. These are their key findings:

Many foundations solicited and incorporated feedback from grantees, community-based organizations, beneficiaries, and the public directly into decisions regarding governance and grant-making, but true decision-making power was rarely given to these stakeholders.
The vast majority of foundations are using stakeholder participation as a way to increase their innovativeness and effectiveness rather than to share power, despite the fact that rhetoric surrounding these practices is focused on breaking down power silos.
For the largest foundations in this country, the primary impediment to stakeholder participation was a perceived lack of time and capacity to implement, despite the sheer volume of assets that these foundations wield.

By learning more about grantmaking practices that are currently in place, the motivations for using these approaches, and the key challenges to incorporating stakeholder participation, researchers hope to lower the barriers that some foundations may face in making stakeholder participation an integral part of their governance and grant-making.

Greater accountability from philanthropic foundations represents an important step to a more equitable future. When large, powerful foundations listen to those they aim to benefit, they can more effectively direct their giving in ways that align with community needs.

Read the Full Report

About the UW Philanthropy Project

The UW Philanthropy Project is a multiyear research program seeking to understand the many important roles that philanthropic foundations play in American society.

Maternal Cash Transfer’s Impact on Child Nutrition: Vedavati Patwardhan, Ph.D. ’21

UW Evans School Ph.D. Candidate Vedavati Patwardhan was recently awarded a grant from the Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy for continued research on the impacts of providing cash assistance to pregnant and nursing mothers on children’s nutritional status in India – an important indicator for their future life success. We discussed how her work will be crucial in understanding how maternal cash transfer programs can have the most impact in low- and middle-income countries, both in how they are designed and implemented, so that those most in need receive the intended benefits.

“Cash transfer schemes are a popular policy tool in many low- and middle-income countries, and programs specifically targeting pregnant and lactating mothers are also gaining popularity…

My findings of the cash transfer program’s impact in Odisha, India speaks to the importance in design of these cash benefit schemes and who benefits in the long-run.”

What inspired you to research the effectiveness of cash assistance for pregnant and nursing mothers in India?

The first 1000 days of life provide a crucial window of opportunity in shaping a child’s future health. So, cash benefits that target mothers during pregnancy and lactation have a high potential to improve child nutrition. In 2017, the Central Government of India launched a national maternal cash benefit scheme, but the Mamata Scheme, which is a state-level program, was a precursor to the national program by 7 years. This inspired me to analyze the effect of maternal cash benefits in India, and the Mamata Scheme in Odisha in particular.

Malnutrition is a large global problem and India accounts for the largest burden of child undernutrition worldwide despite rapid economic growth following economic liberalization. In 2016, the India National Family Health Survey found that 38% of Indian children under the age of 5 had a low height-for-age, (stunting), and 21% suffered from a low weight-for-height (wasting), meaning more than 70 million children had indicators of malnutrition.

Why is it necessary to focus on program assistance to mothers specifically versus the whole family?

Research shows that women’s economic empowerment is linked to a positive effects on a household’s food security, children’s nutrition & health, and education. There are several female-centric policies in low and middle-income countries like India, and the underlying rationale for this is evidence showing that women spend money differently than men, resulting in better children’s outcomes and second, that these policies also empower women. Specific to cash transfers, providing cash assistance to mothers has been linked to higher female autonomy within the household.

Turning to interventions targeting pregnant and nursing mothers: these are important, as poor maternal health has adverse consequences on child mortality and nutrition, and women in low- and middle-income countries often face barriers to access crucial maternity care services. Increased financial resources in the hands of mothers may improve their ability to exercise preferences, reduce poverty related stress, and improve physical and mental conditions.

Given the current context of COVID-19’s tremendous impact in India, why do you think this research is vital, particularly now?

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly exacerbated India’s nutrition challenges. The government’s health and development centers (Anganwadis) were closed, and closed schools meant no midday meals. Economic insecurity has been a double whammy, with rising food prices and job losses forcing people to cope by reducing the quality and quantity of meals. Analyzing government policies such as cash transfers is important to understand the extent these programs mitigate adverse nutritional effects for children in the aftermath of an economic shock.

Are there any general results or themes you are already seeing that you’re able to share?

I find that being eligible for the Mamata Scheme improves some, but not all measures of child nutrition. Children’s weight-for-height and weight-for-age improved after the Mamata Scheme, but, notably, I do not find significant improvements in children’s height-for-age, which is considered a more reliable wellbeing indicator in early childhood. I also find that children in poorer households benefit significantly less than those in wealthier households, suggesting that marginalized populations may be having difficulties with participating in the program.

What do you hope the results from your research will provide for India, as well as other low- and middle-income countries?

Cash transfer schemes are a popular policy tool in many low- and middle-income countries, and programs specifically targeting pregnant and lactating mothers are also gaining popularity (e.g. Indonesia’s Keluarga Harapan, Nicaragua’s Red de Proteccion and the Child Development Grant in Nigeria). The introduction of the national maternal cash benefit scheme in India 2017 signals the rising popularity of these schemes in the Indian context as well.

My findings on the impact of the Mamata Scheme speak to the importance in design of these cash benefit schemes and who benefits in the long-run. Policymakers may wish to pay special attention to whether the universal nature of the scheme (i.e. not selecting beneficiaries based on income) needs modification. Also, further research is needed to understand whether program conditions (women needing to fulfill a set of ante and prenatal care conditions to receive cash) restrict access for marginalized groups. The results are also a reminder that investments in complementary factors such as maternal education, access to clean water, sanitation, and health care are crucial in addition to maternal cash benefit programs.

Evaluating Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Policies Potential for Violence Prevention

Blocks spell out tax on desk next to coins and a calculator

Fact Sheet Outlines Health and Safety Implications of EITCs

The federal earned income tax credit (EITC), the largest cash transfer program for low-earning workers in the United States, is an economic policy intended to reduce poverty. Each year, the EITC program provides earning subsidies in the form of tax credits to certain workers based on their pretax earnings, marital status, and number of children.

A multidisciplinary team of researchers with the University of Washington Department of Epidemiology and Evans School of Public Policy and Governance investigated the EITC program an its affects on the rates of multiple types of violence, including child maltreatment, suicide, and intimate partner violence. It is plausible that a tax credit for low-income families could affect violence by improving family income and economic security, which could then lead to less stress, material hardship, and exposure to neighborhood violence.

The results of this investigation are summarized in the EITC & Violence Prevention Fact Sheet.

Researchers find that a 10 percentage-point increase in the generosity of state EITC benefits was associated with:

a 9% decline in child neglect
a 5% decline in child maltreatment
a 4% decline in suicide attempts
a 1% decline in suicide deaths

(all per year)

Researchers did not find an association between EITCs and intimate partner violence, but they note some restrictions that make it difficult for victims of IPV to receive the EITC.

These findings have policy relevance right now because there are similar programs being discussed and expanded. At the federal level, the stimulus package passed in February included an expansion of the child tax credit. Like the EITC, that credit provides income support to low- and middle-income families. The expansion was temporary but the Biden budget just released includes funding to make it permanent. At the state level, Washington finally funded our own EITC, the Working Families Tax Credit, after not being operational for many years. There are other states that do not have an EITC or have an EITC program that does not benefit low-income families at the levels it could.

Through this investigation, researchers aimed to broaden our scientific understanding of the benefits of providing income support to low-income families, and hope that it will influence state and federal policymakers to think about the potential for providing income support.

This fact sheet was developed by Ali Rowhani-Rahbar (PI), Heather Hill, Steve Mooney, Frederick Rivara, Caitlin Moe, Nicole Kovski, Erin Morgan, and Kim Dalve. Funding for this research was provided by Cooperative Agreement Award U01CE002945 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Learn more about the fact sheet

Evans researchers examine COVID-19 business grant and loan programs

Evans School Professor Crystal Hall, and alumni Puja Kumar, MPA ’20, and Sehej Singh, MPA’20, worked with the U.S. Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES) and Small Business Administration (SBA) to conduct a descriptive study of local grant and loan programs using public information about funding programs and conversations with local officials.

Category: Research