The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides a refundable tax credit to lower-income working families. In 2011, the EITC reached 27.9 million tax filers at a total cost of $62.9 billion. Almost 20 percent of tax filers receive the EITC, and the average credit amount is $2,254 (IRS 2013). After expansions to the EITC in the late 1980s through the late 1990s—under Democrat and Republican administrations—the EITC now occupies a central place in the U.S. safety net. Based on the Census Bureau’s 2012 Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), the EITC keeps 6.5 million people, including 3.3 million children, out of poverty (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities [CBPP] 2014a). No other tax or transfer program prevents more children from living a life of poverty, and only Social Security keeps more people above poverty.

Since the EITC is only eligible to tax filers who work, the credit’s impact on poverty takes place through encouraging employment by ensuring greater pay after taxes. The empirical research shows that the tax credit translates into sizable and robust increases in employment (Eissa and Liebman 1996; Meyer and Rosenbaum 2000, 2001). Thus, the credit reduces poverty through two channels: the actual credit, and increases in family earnings. This dual feature gives the EITC a unique place in the U.S. safety net; in contrast, many other programs redistribute income while, at least to some degree, discouraging work. Importantly, transferring income while encouraging work makes the EITC an efficient and cost-effective policy for increasing the after-tax income of low-earning Americans. Yet a program of this size and impact could be more equitable in its reach. Under the current design of the EITC, childless earners and families with only one child, for instance, receive disproportionately lower refunds. 

In 2014, families with two children (three or more children) are eligible for a maximum credit of $5,460 ($6,143) compared to $3,305 for families with one child. Married couples, despite their larger family sizes, receive only modestly more-generous EITC benefits compared to single filers. Childless earners benefit little from the EITC, and have a maximum credit of only $496—less than 10 percent of the two-child credit. 

Prominent proposals seek to mitigate these inequalities. President Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget includes an expansion of the childless EITC, a concept outlined by John Karl Scholz in 2007 in a proposal for The Hamilton Project. Notably, MDRC is currently evaluating Paycheck Plus, a pilot program for an expanded EITC for workers without dependent children, for the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity (MDRC 2014). The recent Hamilton Project proposal for a secondary-earner tax credit addresses the so-called EITC penalty for married couples (Kearney and Turner 2013). And the more generous EITC credit for three or more children was recently enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and is currently scheduled to sunset in 2017. 

Considering this broad set of EITC reforms, and recognizing the demonstrated effectiveness of the program as an antipoverty program with numerous benefits, this policy memo proposes an expansion for the largest group of  EITC recipients: families with one child. In particular, I propose to expand the one-child schedule to be on par with the two-child schedule, in equivalence scale-adjusted terms. An equivalence scale captures the cost of living for a household of a given size (and demographic composition) relative to the cost of living for a reference household of a single adult, and is a standard component in defining poverty thresholds. The proposal expands the maximum credit for one-child families to $4,641, from $3,305 under current law, an increase of about 40 percent. The expansion will lead to a roughly $1,000 increase in after-tax income for taxpayers in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution receiving the higher credit. As this paper outlines, the expansion is justified on equity and efficiency grounds. This expansion is anchored in the equity principle in that the generosity of the credit should be proportional to the needs of families of differing sizes; I use the equivalence scale implicit in the poverty thresholds of the Census SPM as a guide for household needs. This proposal is also supported by efficiency principles given the EITC’s demonstrated success at raising labor supply among single mothers. 

The target population for the proposal is low-income working families with children. Implementing this proposal requires legislative action by the federal government; it is important to note that altering the EITC schedule requires a simple amendment to the tax code, and not a massive overhaul of our nation’s tax system. The revenue cost of the proposal derives from additional federal costs of the EITC, less the additional payroll and ordinary federal income taxes. The private benefits include increases in after-tax income and reductions in poverty. The proposal would also generate social benefits through the spillover effects that the increase in income plays in improving health and children’s cognitive skills (Dahl and Lochner 2012; Evans and Garthwaite 2014; Hoynes, Miller, and Simon forthcoming).

Downloads

• Building on the Success of the Earned Income Tax Credit - Full Text

Improving data in the field of workforce development is a necessary step to evaluating programs and replicating success. What does current data tell us about the populations served? What outcomes should we measure to ensure programs are meeting America’s workforce development needs?

Earlier this month, we convened an expert group of policy makers, practitioners and scholars to address this problem, along with other challenges in workforce development. Previously, we interviewed Kate Blosveren Kreamer on the need to strengthen bridges from school to work. Next up in our Q&A series is Beth Weigensberg, a researcher at Mathematica Policy Research.

A: Although there is increasingly more rigorous research to assess effectiveness of programs, I feel a missing piece is understanding how to replicate and scale-up effective strategies. Often times workforce development programs that are deemed effective in one place do not always succeed when implemented in another. Research that evaluates effectiveness of programs should assess the role of contextual factors (including organizational, leadership, community, and political factors) to identify what is needed to successfully implement, replicate, and scale successful programs.

A: The workforce development field has an unfortunate history of “creaming”—programs selectively work with individuals most likely to succeed at finding employment, leaving those “harder-to-serve” individuals struggling to find assistance. Individuals that are often considered “hard-to-serve” include those who are homeless, disabled, formerly incarcerated, older workers, non-English speakers, low-income, and youth who are disconnected from school and employment. Increasing efforts to focus on these “harder-to-serve” populations include specialized targeted programs and strategies to help address the complex needs of these individuals, which often extend beyond skill development and finding a job. These specialized programs often provide additional support services to help address their complex needs, which can serve as additional barriers to obtaining and retaining employment.

A: Intermediate measures of engagement and skill development would provide interim measures of progress, while the ultimate objectives are obviously employment and educational attainment. Ongoing evaluation on interim measures allows for earlier acknowledgment of achievement and identification of those struggling to progress. Assessing outcomes in ways that control for different populations or barriers to employment, such as using risk-adjusted methodologies, can help us evaluate workforce development programs in an equitable manner.

One of the biggest challenges in the field is ensuring we have valid and reliable data to accurately estimate outcomes. The data available to assess outcomes are usually limited by what is collected in management information systems, which are often developed to be responsive to reporting requirements of publically-funded programs. But these siloed data do not allow for comprehensive assessment of workforce development outcomes within a state, locality, or even within a community-based employment and training organization that relies on numerous funding sources. Efforts are needed to integrate data and assess standardized outcome measures across program and funding silos to allow for more comprehensive assessment of outcomes within the field.

Improving the labor market and encouraging work are central to our goals of achieving greater responsibility and opportunity in America. The private economy is the arena where most Americans work hard to realize their dreams.

But employment today is failing to achieve the promise it did a few decades ago. Wages of unskilled workers have been fairly stagnant in real terms (especially among men) and have fallen relative to those of more-educated workers; and some groups of Americans (like less-educated men generally and black men, specifically) are working considerably less than they once did.

Stagnant wages and low work participation among some groups of workers are blocking progress. Both must be addressed.

In Chapter 4 of a new report from the AEI-Brookings Working Group on Poverty and Opportunity, the Working Group recommends policies that:

1. Expand opportunities for the disadvantaged by improving their skills;
2. Make work pay better than it does now for the less educated;
3. Expand both work requirements and opportunities for the hard-to-employ while maintaining an effective work-based safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society, especially children; and
4. Make more jobs available.

Downloads

• Download Chapter 4: Work
• Explore the full report

In the course of my graduate work at Harvard University, I paid hundreds of Americans living in poverty the equivalent of about $2 an hour. It was perfectly legal for me to do so, and my research had the approval of my university’s ethics board. I was not alone, or even unusual, in basing Ivy League research on less-than-Walmart wages; literally thousands of academic research projects pay the same substandard rates. Social scientists cannot pretend that the system is anything but exploitative. It is time for meaningful reform of crowdsourced research.

This is what crowdsourced research looks like. I posted a survey using Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a website run by Amazon.com. Across the country, hundreds of MTurk workers (“turkers”) agreed to fill out the survey in exchange for about 20 cents apiece, and within a few days I had my survey results. The process was easy, and above all, cheap. No wonder it is increasingly popular with academics; a search on Google Scholar returns thousands of academic papers citing MTurk, increasing from 173 in 2008 to 5,490 in 2014.

Mechanical Turk is a bargain for researchers, but not for workers. A survey typically takes a couple minutes per person, so the hourly rate is very low. This might be acceptable if all turkers were people with other jobs, for whom the payment was incidental. But scholars have known for years that the vast majority of MTurk tasks are completed by a small set of workers who spend long hours on the website, and that many of those workers are very poor. Here are the sobering facts:

• About 80 percent of tasks on MTurk are completed by about 20 percent of participants that spend more than 15 hours a week working on the site. MTurk works not because it has many hobbyists, but because it has dedicated people who treat the tasks like a job.
• About one in five turkers are earning less than $20,000 a year.
• A third of U.S. turkers call MTurk an important source of income, and more than one in ten say they use MTurk money to make basic ends meet.

Journal articles that refer to Mechanical Turk. Source: PS: Political Science and Politics

It is easy to forget that these statistics represent real people, so let me introduce you to one of them. “Marjorie” is a 53-year-old woman from Indiana who had jobs in a grocery store and as a substitute teacher before a bad fall left her unable to work. Now, she says, “I sit there for probably eight hours a day answering surveys. I’ve done over 8,000 surveys.” For these full days of work, Marjorie estimates that she makes “$100 per month” from MTurk, which supplements the $189 she receives in food stamps. Asked about her economic situation, Marjorie simply says that she is “poverty stricken.”

I heard similar stories from other MTurk workers—very poor people, often elderly or disabled, working tremendous hours online just to keep themselves and their families afloat. I spoke to a woman who never got back on her feet after losing her home in Hurricane Rita, and another who had barely escaped foreclosure. A mother of two was working multiple jobs, plus her time MTurk, to keep her family off government assistance. Job options are few for many turkers, especially those who are disabled, and MTurk provides resources they might not otherwise have. But these workers that work anonymously from home are isolated and have few avenues to organize for higher wages or other employment protections.

Once I realized how poorly paid my respondents were, I went back and gave every one of my over 1,400 participants a “bonus” to raise the survey respondent rate to the equivalent of a $10 hourly wage. (I paid an additional $15 to respondents who participated in an interview.) This cost me a little bit more money, but less than you might imagine. For a 3-minute survey of 800 people, going from a 20-cent to a 50-cent payment costs an additional $240. But if every researcher paid an ethical wage, it would really add up for people like Marjorie. In fact, it would likely double her monthly income from MTurk.

Raising wages is a start, but it should not be up to individual researchers to impose workplace standards. In this month’s PS: Political Science and Politics, a peer-reviewed journal published for the American Political Science Association, I have called for new standards for crowdsourced research to be implemented not only by individual researchers, but also by universities, journals, and grantmakers. For instance, journal editors should commit to publishing only those articles that pay respondents an ethical rate, and university ethics boards should create guidelines for use of crowdsourcing that consider wages and also crowdsourcers’ lack of access to basic employment protections.

The alternative is continuing to pay below-minimum-wage rates to a substantial number of poor people who rely on this income for their basic needs. This is simply no alternative at all.

This post originally appeared on the TechTank blog.

In the course of my graduate work at Harvard University, I paid hundreds of Americans living in poverty the equivalent of about $2 an hour. It was perfectly legal for me to do so, and my research had the approval of my university’s ethics board. I was not alone, or even unusual, in basing Ivy League research on less-than-Walmart wages; literally thousands of academic research projects pay the same substandard rates. Social scientists cannot pretend that the system is anything but exploitative. It is time for meaningful reform of crowdsourced research.

This is what crowdsourced research looks like. I posted a survey using Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a website run by Amazon.com. Across the country, hundreds of MTurk workers (“turkers”) agreed to fill out the survey in exchange for about 20 cents apiece, and within a few days I had my survey results. The process was easy, and above all, cheap. No wonder it is increasingly popular with academics; a search on Google Scholar returns thousands of academic papers citing MTurk, increasing from 173 in 2008 to 5,490 in 2014.

Mechanical Turk is a bargain for researchers, but not for workers. A survey typically takes a couple minutes per person, so the hourly rate is very low. This might be acceptable if all turkers were people with other jobs, for whom the payment was incidental. But scholars have known for years that the vast majority of MTurk tasks are completed by a small set of workers who spend long hours on the website, and that many of those workers are very poor. Here are the sobering facts:

• About 80 percent of tasks on MTurk are completed by about 20 percent of participants that spend more than 15 hours a week working on the site. MTurk works not because it has many hobbyists, but because it has dedicated people who treat the tasks like a job.
• About one in five turkers are earning less than $20,000 a year.
• A third of U.S. turkers call MTurk an important source of income, and more than one in ten say they use MTurk money to make basic ends meet.

Journal articles that refer to Mechanical Turk. Source: PS: Political Science and Politics

It is easy to forget that these statistics represent real people, so let me introduce you to one of them. “Marjorie” is a 53-year-old woman from Indiana who had jobs in a grocery store and as a substitute teacher before a bad fall left her unable to work. Now, she says, “I sit there for probably eight hours a day answering surveys. I’ve done over 8,000 surveys.” For these full days of work, Marjorie estimates that she makes “$100 per month” from MTurk, which supplements the $189 she receives in food stamps. Asked about her economic situation, Marjorie simply says that she is “poverty stricken.”

I heard similar stories from other MTurk workers—very poor people, often elderly or disabled, working tremendous hours online just to keep themselves and their families afloat. I spoke to a woman who never got back on her feet after losing her home in Hurricane Rita, and another who had barely escaped foreclosure. A mother of two was working multiple jobs, plus her time MTurk, to keep her family off government assistance. Job options are few for many turkers, especially those who are disabled, and MTurk provides resources they might not otherwise have. But these workers that work anonymously from home are isolated and have few avenues to organize for higher wages or other employment protections.

Once I realized how poorly paid my respondents were, I went back and gave every one of my over 1,400 participants a “bonus” to raise the survey respondent rate to the equivalent of a $10 hourly wage. (I paid an additional $15 to respondents who participated in an interview.) This cost me a little bit more money, but less than you might imagine. For a 3-minute survey of 800 people, going from a 20-cent to a 50-cent payment costs an additional $240. But if every researcher paid an ethical wage, it would really add up for people like Marjorie. In fact, it would likely double her monthly income from MTurk.

Raising wages is a start, but it should not be up to individual researchers to impose workplace standards. In this month’s PS: Political Science and Politics, a peer-reviewed journal published for the American Political Science Association, I have called for new standards for crowdsourced research to be implemented not only by individual researchers, but also by universities, journals, and grantmakers. For instance, journal editors should commit to publishing only those articles that pay respondents an ethical rate, and university ethics boards should create guidelines for use of crowdsourcing that consider wages and also crowdsourcers’ lack of access to basic employment protections.

The alternative is continuing to pay below-minimum-wage rates to a substantial number of poor people who rely on this income for their basic needs. This is simply no alternative at all.

The idea of a universal basic income (UBI) is certainly an intriguing one, and has been gaining traction. Swiss voters just turned it down. But it is still alive in Finland, in the Netherlands, in Alaska, in Oakland, CA, and in parts of Canada. 

Advocates of a UBI include Charles Murray on the right and Anthony Atkinson on the left. This surprising alliance alone makes it interesting, and it is a reasonable response to a growing pool of Americans made jobless by the march of technology and a safety net that is overly complex and bureaucratic. A comprehensive and excellent analysis in The Economist points out that while fears about technological unemployment have previously proved misleading, “the past is not always a good guide to the future.”

Robert Greenstein argues, however, that a UBI would actually hurt the poor by reallocating support up the income scale. His logic is inescapable: either we have to spend additional trillions providing income grants to all Americans or we have to limit assistance to those who need it most. 

One option is to provide unconditional payments along the lines of a UBI, but to phase it out as income rises. Libertarians like this approach since it gets rid of bureaucracies and leaves the poor free to spend the money on whatever they choose, rather than providing specific funds for particular needs. Liberals fear that such unconditional assistance would be unpopular and would be an easy target for elimination in the face of budget pressures. Right now most of our social programs are conditional. With the exception of the aged and the disabled, assistance is tied to work or to the consumption of necessities such as food, housing, or medical care, and our two largest means-tested programs are Food Stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Liberals have been less willing to openly acknowledge that a little paternalism in social policy may not be such a bad thing. In fact, progressives and libertarians alike are loath to admit that many of the poor and jobless are lacking more than just cash. They may be addicted to drugs or alcohol, suffer from mental health issues, have criminal records, or have difficulty functioning in a complex society. Money may be needed but money by itself does not cure such ills. 

A humane and wealthy society should provide the disadvantaged with adequate services and support. But there is nothing wrong with making assistance conditional on individuals fulfilling some obligation whether it is work, training, getting treatment, or living in a supportive but supervised environment.

In the end, the biggest problem with a universal basic income may not be its costs or its distributive implications, but the flawed assumption that money cures all ills.