This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Clearly, what I expected to happen—bring food and people will come and eat it—was not what happened in this organization. I called one of the Associate Executive Directors. And it was also clear that when those scouts returned with food and apparently unharmed, it nudged others to come up. And no one came. Not everyone came.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States engaged in an innovative policy experiment: for one year, the federal government expanded the existing child tax credit—making it available to families with little or no earnings, increasing the credit amount, and providing monthly payments instead of an annual payment at tax time.
But where did they come from, and why are they still a central part of economic policy today? This series— Ending Work Requirements — based on a report by the Maven Collaborative, the Center for SocialPolicy, and Ife Finch Floyd, will explore the truth behind work requirements. These numbers might even be underestimations.
The new studies bolster the case, long made by many liberal economists and policymakers, that poor families tend to spend cash welfare payments on their most pressing needs, to the benefit of the entire household and especially children. Among the top priorities for families that received the expanded credit, the March study found, was food.
But where did they come from, and why are they still a central part of economic policy today? This series— Ending Work Requirements — based on a report by the Maven Collaborative, the Center for SocialPolicy, and Ife Finch Floyd, will explore the truth behind work requirements. These accusations were never based in reality.
This erasure of Black women from socialpolicy built on a single-axis framework is especially true with respect to housing. When asked what her top motivation was in wanting to be a homeowner, she didn’t talk about investments or retirement, but rather her children. Image Credit: Angelina Sorokin. Image Credit: Angelina Sorokin.
Earlier this year, I had to chance to talk with Quart about her new book, her description of contemporary US socialpolicy as having created a “dystopian social safety net,” and her thoughts about how to build a US society that is centered on mutual caring and economic justice. Interview has been edited for length and clarity.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 27,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content