Policy Reports and Briefs by Nancy K. Cauthen
A sizable and growing portion of the workforce is engaged in nonstandard and often precarious emp... more A sizable and growing portion of the workforce is engaged in nonstandard and often precarious employment, which includes work that is part time,
temporary or “on call”; being an independent contractor or otherwise self-employed; and working for a contracting company instead of directly for an employer. Many workers in nonstandard arrangements face considerable insecurity because of lower wages, lack of job security, responsibility for work expenses, uncertain hours and unpredictable schedules. Nonstandard arrangements often lack other elements of security such as paid time off, health insurance and retirement benefits. The instability inherent in many nonstandard work arrangements, along with inflexible employer practices that fail to accommodate employee sickness or caregiving responsibilities, increase the likelihood of both intermittent spells of unemployment and underemployment. But our labor standards and protections, such as wage and hour laws and Unemployment Insurance (UI), are still based on 20th century norms about employment, gender roles, and family. This paper explores the dynamics of intermittent unemployment and volatile work hours in nonstandard employment and the resulting challenges for public policy.
“Workplace flexibility” is the buzz phrase in debates about how to help busy parents better juggl... more “Workplace flexibility” is the buzz phrase in debates about how to help busy parents better juggle the competing demands of work and family. But the public conversation has been shaped largely by the experiences of professional and managerial workers — the target of their demands has been the archetypal fixed schedule of a full-time, salaried office worker who often puts in far more than the requisite 40 hours a week. As such, the workplace flexibility discussion remains somewhat tone deaf when it comes to the needs of low-wage workers. Low-wage workers face a completely different set of challenges — they are much more likely to be paid hourly, work less than full time, and have erratic schedules with little advance notice of when they are expected to work. Their hours — and therefore pay — often vary
from week to week and even month to month. So while full-time professional and managerial workers have sought flexibility to diverge from rigid schedules, low-wage workers typically need more predictability and stability within fluid schedules.
The recent trend toward “just-in-time” scheduling epitomizes the unstable unemployment environment faced by low-wage workers. Just-in-time (JIT) scheduling, also called “scheduling to demand,” is a practice that closely links labor supply to consumer demand. Used widely in the service sector, employers rely on scheduling software and measures of demand (such as floor traffic, sales volume, hotel registrations, or dinner reservations) to match workers’ hours to labor needs. In doing so, they often change posted schedules at the last minute even if it means sending workers home after they arrive for work or asking them to stay beyond the end of their shift.
This brief examines the rise of JIT scheduling, what it looks like in practice, its effects on workers and their families, and what it means for business. It ends with a set of policy recommendations that would better balance the needs of workers and employers.
Low-wage workers and their families face rising levels of economic insecurity. Analyts estimate t... more Low-wage workers and their families face rising levels of economic insecurity. Analyts estimate that anywhere from a quarter to a third of U.S. workers—35 to 46 million—hold low-wage jobs that provide few prospects for advancement and wage growth. Further, such jobs typically offer few of the employer-sponsored benefits—such as health insurance, paid sick leave, retirement plans, and the flexibility to deal with family needs—that higher-income workers often take for granted. At the same time, the costs of supporting a family—housing, medical care, child care, and transportation—have increased, consuming larger portions of the family budget. Increasing gaps between family income and basic expenses combined with easy access to expensive credit have conspired to saddle millions of working Americans with crippling debt. In short, low wages, few employer-provided benefits, few routes to advancement, the increased costs of basic necessities, minimal savings, and increased debt have left large numbers of American workers and their families economically vulnerable. Many such families are merely one crisis—a serious illness, job loss, or divorce—away from financial devastation.
Government “work support” benefits—such as earned income tax credits, child care assistance, public health insurance coverage, and housing assistance—can help low-wage workers close the gap between insufficient earnings and basic expenses. And there is now abundant research evidence that work supports positively affect employment outcomes and family incomes, which in turn benefit children. For example, a series of expansions in the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has been credited with contributing to an increase in employment and decrease in poverty among
single-mother families from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s.
If we agree as a nation that full-time workers should be able to meet their basic needs and those of their children, we need a comprehensive, integrated work support system that is explicitly designed to address the challenges faced by ever-growing numbers of America’s workers and their families. U.S. work support programs need to be modernized and systematically overhauled.
This paper begins by describing why work support programs are needed. It then goes on to explain the state of current U.S. programs and why we need to reform them. The final sections of the paper describe some concrete policy proposals for reform and offer recommendations about priorities and next steps
Just as a postsecondary education has become essential for getting a decent job and entering the ... more Just as a postsecondary education has become essential for getting a decent job and entering the middle class, it has become financially out of reach for many of America’s young people. The cost of going to school has increased exponentially, while financial aid policies have increasingly abandoned students with the greatest financial need. This means that students and their families now pay—or borrow—a lot more for a college degree. The result is that more young people from low- to moderate-income families are
enrolling in college only to drop out because of financial constraints.
In their search for an affordable education, growing numbers of young college students—those under age 24—are turning to community colleges; the vast majority of them enroll with the intention of transferring to a four-year institution. But only two in five young community college students complete a degree of any kind within six years of starting their studies. Although they face multiple obstacles to staying in school, financial constraints are a key barrier to their success.
Even though tuition costs less at a community college, students must pay for books and other educational expenses in addition to their basic living expenses—rent, utilities, food, health care and transportation. Yet available financial aid covers only a fraction of the costs incurred by students. And those with the least financial means face the largest amounts of unmet financial need even after taking aid awards into account.
To finance their educations, the majority of young community college students enroll in school only part time and/or work more than 20 hours per week. Although these strategies temporarily ease students’ financial burdens, part-time enrollment and excessive work hours extend the time it takes to complete a degree and greatly increase the likelihood that students will not graduate.
In this brief, we outline the limitations of the current college internship system and lay out a ... more In this brief, we outline the limitations of the current college internship system and lay out a proposal that would enable low-income college students to pursue paid
internships at either non-profit organizations or in government. We propose that the federal government initially appropriate $500 million in spending for the Student Opportunity Program to support about 100,000 low-income college students per year. This would be funded initially by capping contributions to section 529 savings plans (a recent recommendation of the Treasury Department to the White House’s Middle Class ask Force) and consolidating the currently disparate system of higher education tax expenditures. Going forward, we envision increasing support for the campus-based components of our proposal to provide expanded funding to more universities and colleges.
Te Student Opportunity Program will serve as a pipeline to college completion and employment for high-achieving, low-income students, helping them to acquire the skills, contacts, and experience that will improve their future labor market potential and encourage them to pursue careers in public service.
How serious is the problem of of child poverty and family economic hardship in the United States ... more How serious is the problem of of child poverty and family economic hardship in the United States and what can be done about it?
Staying Afloat in Tough Times tracks state-level policies that help families both avoid and cope ... more Staying Afloat in Tough Times tracks state-level policies that help families both avoid and cope with economic hardship. The report examines three categories of policies: work attachment and advancement, income adequacy, and asset development and protection. Although states have taken the lead over the last decade in policy efforts to help low-income families, this study demonstrates that assistance is extraordinarily uneven across the states. The authors conclude that America needs a national vision of family economic security-and the leadership to implement it. AuThorS Sarah Fass, MPh, is a policy associate on the Family Economic Security team at NCCP. her research focuses on child poverty and policies that promote the economic security and well-being of low-income families, including federal and state family and medical leave policies. Jodie Briggs, MPP, is a policy analyst on the Family Economic Security team at NCCP, where her research focuses on state and federal work support policies.
Over 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, ... more Over 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $21,200 a year for a family of four in 2008. Not only are these numbers troubling, the official poverty measure tells only part of the story – it is widely viewed as a flawed metric of economic hardship. Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet. Nonetheless, eligibility for many public benefits is based on the official poverty measure. This fact sheet details some of the characteristics of American children who are considered poor based on the official standard
This fact sheet discusses how the U.S. government measures poverty, why the current measure is in... more This fact sheet discusses how the U.S. government measures poverty, why the current measure is inadequate, and what alternative ways exist to measure economic hardship. The U.S. government measures poverty by a narrow income standard that does not include other aspects of economic status, such as material hardship (for example, living in substandard housing) or debt, nor does it consider financial assets (including savings or property). The official poverty measure is a specific dollar amount that varies by family size but is the same across the continental U.S. According to the guidelines, the poverty level in 2008 is $21,200 a year for a family of four and $17,600 for a family of three (see table). The poverty guidelines are used to determine eligibility for public programs. A similar but more complex measure is used for calculating poverty rates.
This brief seeks to inform policymakers about the difficulties faced by low-income working parent... more This brief seeks to inform policymakers about the difficulties faced by low-income working parents as they strive to make progress in the workforce. Using data from NCCP's Family Resource Simulator, it highlights ways in which the current structure of work support policies often leads to unintended consequences. As low-wage workers increase their earnings above the federal poverty level, their families begin to lose eligibility for government work supports, such as earned income tax credits, childcare and food assistance, and public health insurance. Given that some of these benefits drop off quickly as wages increase, earning more does not always improve a family's financial bottom line.
As we approach the 10-year anniversary of the signing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opp... more As we approach the 10-year anniversary of the signing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), commonly referred to as “welfare reform,” pundits are rushing to declare the effort either an unqualified success or an utter disaster. Despite the hype, most of us know that the truth lies somewhere in between. There have been undeniable successes, yet significant policy challenges remain. Welfare reform is not over.
Despite the fact that Social Security provides more benefits to children than any other social pr... more Despite the fact that Social Security provides more benefits to children than any other social program, recent debates about Social Security have ignored our nation's youngest citizens. Over 5 million children in the United States benefit from Social Security, either directly as beneficiaries or indirectly as members of households that receive a monthly Social Security check. Social Security is not just a retirement program. It is also a family insurance program for workers, their spouses, and their children. Social Security provides income support to disabled workers and their families, as well as to the survivors of workers who die. Nearly a third of Social Security beneficiaries receive support through the survivor and disability components of the program. These insurance protections have kept many middle- and low-income families from falling into poverty because of a parent's death or disability. This policy brief provides basic information about Social Security and describes the vital protections the program offers to workers and their families. It also poses questions that policymakers should consider as the debate over Social Security continues.
Over 5 million children benefit from Social Security—as dependents of workers who have
died or b... more Over 5 million children benefit from Social Security—as dependents of workers who have
died or become disabled, or as family members in households where an adult relies on Social Security. The program provides more benefits to children than any other social program.
Social Security has provided a retirement safety net for the elderly for more than six decades. B... more Social Security has provided a retirement safety net for the elderly for more than six decades. But the program also provides working parents with valuable-and irreplaceable-insurance protection for their families against the tragedies of serious disability and death. Given the importance of the survivor and disability components of Social Security, any responsible proposal for changing the program must address how the children and spouses of deceased workers, and disabled workers and their families would be affected.
Despite Social Security’s undeniable success at providing income protection for families, we now ... more Despite Social Security’s undeniable success at providing income protection for families, we now face national proposals that would dramatically alter the program. Creating private accounts to replace part of the current system represents a radical departure from the program’s original design. Proponents argue that such accounts would ultimately provide greater security. But security for whom? What about child beneficiaries—how would they be affected? What about surviving spouses of workers who die, and disabled workers and their families? What about Social Security’s original promise that hard-working people and their families would not be consigned to destitution simply because of early death or disability? These questions have barely been acknowledged, let alone addressed.
I am submitting comments on behalf of the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) to expre... more I am submitting comments on behalf of the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) to express support for the ideas presented in the draft legislation, the "Measuring American Poverty Act." The proposal addresses a number of issues I raised in testimony given a year ago at this subcommittee's hearing on "Measuring Poverty in America" (Cauthen 2007). In brief, I argued that: n Because poverty exacts such a high toll on our society, it is critical that we measure it in a meaningful way so that we can address it and measure the degree to which our anti-poverty policies are successful. n The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) 1995 recommendations for improving the official poverty measure offer the most promising-and efficacious-approach to creating a more accurate measure of income poverty. n In a wealthy, advanced industrial society such as ours, it is imperative that we supplement measures of income poverty with additional indicators of the health and well-being of our nation's citizens, especially our youngest.
Most measures of poverty, in the U.S. and elsewhere, focus narrowly on income rather than includi... more Most measures of poverty, in the U.S. and elsewhere, focus narrowly on income rather than including other aspects of economic status, such as assets or debt. Income poverty is measured by one of two standards—“absolute” or “relative” measures. Absolute measures of poverty—like the official U.S. measure—set an income threshold below which an individual or family is considered to be poor, regardless of general living standards. Relative measures typically set the poverty level at a percent of median income and therefore vary with the economic fortunes of the population as a whole.
NCCP, where her current research examines the effects of state and federal policies on the abilit... more NCCP, where her current research examines the effects of state and federal policies on the ability of low-income families to achieve economic security. She also has written about the history of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Social Security, general assistance, and the Depression-era Works Projects Administration (WPA).
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina exposed glaring truths about poverty in America. Child poverty... more The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina exposed glaring truths about poverty in America. Child poverty and material hardship are not just problems experienced by the states in Katrina’s path—they plague Americans around the country. Just as residents began the clean-up process, the U.S. Census Bureau released numbers showing that in 2004, the poverty rate rose for the fourth straight year in a row— 37 million Americans live below the poverty line. In the wake of this national tragedy, poverty should once again become a topic of national concern. Now is the time to focus on how to make sure no more children are left behind. This series, Child Poverty in 21st Century America, addresses the challenge.
About 85 percent of low-income children have parents who work, and most have at least one parent ... more About 85 percent of low-income children have parents who work, and most have at least one parent working full-time, year-round. Nonetheless, many of these parents are unable to afford basic necessities for their families, such as food, housing, and stable child care. Even a full-time job is not always enough to make ends meet, and many parents cannot get ahead simply by working more. As earnings increase—particularly as they rise above the official poverty level—families begin to lose eligibility for work supports. At the same time, work-related expenses, such as child care and transportation, increase. This means that parents may earn more without a family experiencing more financial security.1 In some cases, earning more actually leaves a family with fewer resources after the bills are paid. The Family Resource Simulator, developed by the National Center for Children in Poverty, illustrates how this happens. This web-based tool calculates resources and expenses for a hypothetical ...
Uploads
Policy Reports and Briefs by Nancy K. Cauthen
temporary or “on call”; being an independent contractor or otherwise self-employed; and working for a contracting company instead of directly for an employer. Many workers in nonstandard arrangements face considerable insecurity because of lower wages, lack of job security, responsibility for work expenses, uncertain hours and unpredictable schedules. Nonstandard arrangements often lack other elements of security such as paid time off, health insurance and retirement benefits. The instability inherent in many nonstandard work arrangements, along with inflexible employer practices that fail to accommodate employee sickness or caregiving responsibilities, increase the likelihood of both intermittent spells of unemployment and underemployment. But our labor standards and protections, such as wage and hour laws and Unemployment Insurance (UI), are still based on 20th century norms about employment, gender roles, and family. This paper explores the dynamics of intermittent unemployment and volatile work hours in nonstandard employment and the resulting challenges for public policy.
from week to week and even month to month. So while full-time professional and managerial workers have sought flexibility to diverge from rigid schedules, low-wage workers typically need more predictability and stability within fluid schedules.
The recent trend toward “just-in-time” scheduling epitomizes the unstable unemployment environment faced by low-wage workers. Just-in-time (JIT) scheduling, also called “scheduling to demand,” is a practice that closely links labor supply to consumer demand. Used widely in the service sector, employers rely on scheduling software and measures of demand (such as floor traffic, sales volume, hotel registrations, or dinner reservations) to match workers’ hours to labor needs. In doing so, they often change posted schedules at the last minute even if it means sending workers home after they arrive for work or asking them to stay beyond the end of their shift.
This brief examines the rise of JIT scheduling, what it looks like in practice, its effects on workers and their families, and what it means for business. It ends with a set of policy recommendations that would better balance the needs of workers and employers.
Government “work support” benefits—such as earned income tax credits, child care assistance, public health insurance coverage, and housing assistance—can help low-wage workers close the gap between insufficient earnings and basic expenses. And there is now abundant research evidence that work supports positively affect employment outcomes and family incomes, which in turn benefit children. For example, a series of expansions in the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has been credited with contributing to an increase in employment and decrease in poverty among
single-mother families from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s.
If we agree as a nation that full-time workers should be able to meet their basic needs and those of their children, we need a comprehensive, integrated work support system that is explicitly designed to address the challenges faced by ever-growing numbers of America’s workers and their families. U.S. work support programs need to be modernized and systematically overhauled.
This paper begins by describing why work support programs are needed. It then goes on to explain the state of current U.S. programs and why we need to reform them. The final sections of the paper describe some concrete policy proposals for reform and offer recommendations about priorities and next steps
enrolling in college only to drop out because of financial constraints.
In their search for an affordable education, growing numbers of young college students—those under age 24—are turning to community colleges; the vast majority of them enroll with the intention of transferring to a four-year institution. But only two in five young community college students complete a degree of any kind within six years of starting their studies. Although they face multiple obstacles to staying in school, financial constraints are a key barrier to their success.
Even though tuition costs less at a community college, students must pay for books and other educational expenses in addition to their basic living expenses—rent, utilities, food, health care and transportation. Yet available financial aid covers only a fraction of the costs incurred by students. And those with the least financial means face the largest amounts of unmet financial need even after taking aid awards into account.
To finance their educations, the majority of young community college students enroll in school only part time and/or work more than 20 hours per week. Although these strategies temporarily ease students’ financial burdens, part-time enrollment and excessive work hours extend the time it takes to complete a degree and greatly increase the likelihood that students will not graduate.
internships at either non-profit organizations or in government. We propose that the federal government initially appropriate $500 million in spending for the Student Opportunity Program to support about 100,000 low-income college students per year. This would be funded initially by capping contributions to section 529 savings plans (a recent recommendation of the Treasury Department to the White House’s Middle Class ask Force) and consolidating the currently disparate system of higher education tax expenditures. Going forward, we envision increasing support for the campus-based components of our proposal to provide expanded funding to more universities and colleges.
Te Student Opportunity Program will serve as a pipeline to college completion and employment for high-achieving, low-income students, helping them to acquire the skills, contacts, and experience that will improve their future labor market potential and encourage them to pursue careers in public service.
died or become disabled, or as family members in households where an adult relies on Social Security. The program provides more benefits to children than any other social program.
temporary or “on call”; being an independent contractor or otherwise self-employed; and working for a contracting company instead of directly for an employer. Many workers in nonstandard arrangements face considerable insecurity because of lower wages, lack of job security, responsibility for work expenses, uncertain hours and unpredictable schedules. Nonstandard arrangements often lack other elements of security such as paid time off, health insurance and retirement benefits. The instability inherent in many nonstandard work arrangements, along with inflexible employer practices that fail to accommodate employee sickness or caregiving responsibilities, increase the likelihood of both intermittent spells of unemployment and underemployment. But our labor standards and protections, such as wage and hour laws and Unemployment Insurance (UI), are still based on 20th century norms about employment, gender roles, and family. This paper explores the dynamics of intermittent unemployment and volatile work hours in nonstandard employment and the resulting challenges for public policy.
from week to week and even month to month. So while full-time professional and managerial workers have sought flexibility to diverge from rigid schedules, low-wage workers typically need more predictability and stability within fluid schedules.
The recent trend toward “just-in-time” scheduling epitomizes the unstable unemployment environment faced by low-wage workers. Just-in-time (JIT) scheduling, also called “scheduling to demand,” is a practice that closely links labor supply to consumer demand. Used widely in the service sector, employers rely on scheduling software and measures of demand (such as floor traffic, sales volume, hotel registrations, or dinner reservations) to match workers’ hours to labor needs. In doing so, they often change posted schedules at the last minute even if it means sending workers home after they arrive for work or asking them to stay beyond the end of their shift.
This brief examines the rise of JIT scheduling, what it looks like in practice, its effects on workers and their families, and what it means for business. It ends with a set of policy recommendations that would better balance the needs of workers and employers.
Government “work support” benefits—such as earned income tax credits, child care assistance, public health insurance coverage, and housing assistance—can help low-wage workers close the gap between insufficient earnings and basic expenses. And there is now abundant research evidence that work supports positively affect employment outcomes and family incomes, which in turn benefit children. For example, a series of expansions in the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has been credited with contributing to an increase in employment and decrease in poverty among
single-mother families from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s.
If we agree as a nation that full-time workers should be able to meet their basic needs and those of their children, we need a comprehensive, integrated work support system that is explicitly designed to address the challenges faced by ever-growing numbers of America’s workers and their families. U.S. work support programs need to be modernized and systematically overhauled.
This paper begins by describing why work support programs are needed. It then goes on to explain the state of current U.S. programs and why we need to reform them. The final sections of the paper describe some concrete policy proposals for reform and offer recommendations about priorities and next steps
enrolling in college only to drop out because of financial constraints.
In their search for an affordable education, growing numbers of young college students—those under age 24—are turning to community colleges; the vast majority of them enroll with the intention of transferring to a four-year institution. But only two in five young community college students complete a degree of any kind within six years of starting their studies. Although they face multiple obstacles to staying in school, financial constraints are a key barrier to their success.
Even though tuition costs less at a community college, students must pay for books and other educational expenses in addition to their basic living expenses—rent, utilities, food, health care and transportation. Yet available financial aid covers only a fraction of the costs incurred by students. And those with the least financial means face the largest amounts of unmet financial need even after taking aid awards into account.
To finance their educations, the majority of young community college students enroll in school only part time and/or work more than 20 hours per week. Although these strategies temporarily ease students’ financial burdens, part-time enrollment and excessive work hours extend the time it takes to complete a degree and greatly increase the likelihood that students will not graduate.
internships at either non-profit organizations or in government. We propose that the federal government initially appropriate $500 million in spending for the Student Opportunity Program to support about 100,000 low-income college students per year. This would be funded initially by capping contributions to section 529 savings plans (a recent recommendation of the Treasury Department to the White House’s Middle Class ask Force) and consolidating the currently disparate system of higher education tax expenditures. Going forward, we envision increasing support for the campus-based components of our proposal to provide expanded funding to more universities and colleges.
Te Student Opportunity Program will serve as a pipeline to college completion and employment for high-achieving, low-income students, helping them to acquire the skills, contacts, and experience that will improve their future labor market potential and encourage them to pursue careers in public service.
died or become disabled, or as family members in households where an adult relies on Social Security. The program provides more benefits to children than any other social program.