Urban Institute

About: Urban Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Medicaid & Population. The organization has 927 authors who have published 2330 publications receiving 86426 citations.

The incubator hypothesis : Evidence from five SMSAs

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to review the past evidence and to offer some new data to assess whether the incubator hypothesis can be empirically supported. In particular the two general aspects of the hypothesis will be tested. First, we will examine the proposition that highly centralized locations are attracting a disproportionate number of new firms and/or the employment associated with new firms. Second, we will test the hypothesis that new firms which are formed in high density areas move outward from such sites in their early years of existence in order to expand their productive activities. We refer to these as the "simple and "dynamic" hypotheses in the rest of the paper. Our analysis is based on the experience of all manufacturers in several U.S. cities. We recognize that it is quite possible that the hypothesis could hold for certain industries even if it is unsupported for all firms together. Our intent, however, is to test the validity of the hypothesis as a general theory of intraurban location behavior. The paper consists of three sections. The first two present evidence on the "simple" and "dynamic" hypotheses. The final section summarizes our findings and offers some conclusions.

Effect of State Food Stamp and TANF Policies on Food Stamp Program Participation

Abstract: This paper uses monthly SIPP data from 1996 through 2003 and state-level policy data to measure the effects of specific food stamp and welfare policies, as well as the minimum wage and EITC, on the food stamp receipt of the low-income population. We find strong evidence that more lenient vehicle exemption policies, longer recertification periods, and expanded categorical eligibility increase food stamp receipt and that the use of biometric technology reduces food stamp receipt. We also find some evidence that more lenient immigrant eligibility rules, simplified reporting, implementation of the EBT program, and outreach spending increase food stamp receipt.

Under Construction: The Continuing Evolution of Job Structures in Call Centers

Abstract: We study inbound call centers in fourteen businesses, using interview-based case studies. Contrary to the notion that U.S. businesses are eliminating job security and internal career tracks, these firms still incorporate these features in their job structures, and in many cases businesses that initially dismantled job and career structures ended up rebuilding them. The paper suggests a more nuanced account of changing job structures that incorporates market, institutional, and agency factors.

Medicaid-Eligible Children Who Don?t Enroll: Health Status, Access to Care, and Implications for Medicaid Enrollment

Abstract: Among Medicaid-eligible children in the U.S., an estimated 17 % are uninsured, with 27% covered by private insurance. Uninsured children have become a target for state outreach and enrollment efforts. However, the effort may not be a worthwhile use of resources if these children have sufficient access to primary care and are able to enroll in Medicaid should serious health problems arise. This analysis of data from the National Health Interview Survey from 1994 and 1995 suggests otherwise. Although the uninsured Medicaid-eligible children are healthier than their enrolled counterparts, they face reduced access to care and lower rates of service use. After controlling for health status and other characteristics, we find that being uninsured increases the likelihood of being without a usual source of care, and increases unmet need. Being uninsured decreases the proportion of children with any health provider visits, and increases the proportion with family out-of-pocket expenses exceeding $500. These findings lend support to the hypothesis that the enrollment process is onerous for some families. Targeted efforts to enroll the uninsured Medicaid eligible children could help in reducing the effect of barriers and reducing differences in access to care. (Inquiry 2000 Summer; 37: 203-218).

Employment Factors Influencing Food Stamp Program Participation

Abstract: Food stamp participation rates plummeted from 75 percent in 1994 to 59 percent in 2000 (Cunnyngham 2002, p. 3).1 In response to plummeting participation rates, and with the new flexibility brought about by the 1996 federal welfare reforms, many states are re-engineering their programs to improve accessibility (Rosenbaum 2000; Bell, et al. 2001). States are extending office hours, establishing automated call centers, and improving outreach, among other changes. But not all program changes are geared toward increasing participation rates. States have strong financial incentives to keep Food Stamp Program certification error rates low, a goal that often runs counter to improving participation rates. States are making policy decisions — which have strong implications for Food Stamp Program participation decisions — without the benefit of knowing the factors that make some eligible working persons choose to participate and others choose not to participate. This study will examine how low-income households' employment characteristics influence Food Stamp Program participation.The relationship between employment and Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation is of special interest for two reasons. First, characteristics of the food stamp caseload and the food stamp eligible population have changed to include more working low-income households. As Gleason et al. (2000) note, there has been a large increase in the proportion of food stamp participants with earnings. Among food stamp recipient families with children, the percentage working increased from 27 percent in 1993 to 42 percent in 1999 (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2001a, p. 1). Second, along with the declining participation rate has come a growing concern that eligible working low-income families are not participating in the Food Stamp Program. "Food stamps are crucial to helping low-wage working families make ends meet. A family of four supported by a full-time, year-round minimum wage worker will fall short of the poverty line by 25 percent (even after counting the earned income tax credit) if the family does not receive food stamps. Food stamps increase the typical monthly purchasing power of such a family by 39 percent" (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2001a, p. 4). Food stamp participation may reduce the chance that families are unable to financially meet basic needs and so use other forms of public assistance. It is important to understand how the Food Stamp Program works for the large fraction of the caseload that is employed, but it is even more important to understand why the Food Stamp Program does not work for low-income working persons who do not participate.The Food Stamp Program structure, with its numerous application rules, program requirements, and administrative practices, may be one reason that working low-income persons choose not to participate. As Besharov (2000) has argued, the Food Stamp Program was built around the non-working poor and the program for the working poor looks like an afterthought.Indeed, important aspects of the program do make participation difficult for the working low-income persons by effectively raising the monetary and nonmonetary costs of participation. For example, many individuals are required to appear in person at their local food stamp office to apply for food stamps and, in most cases, for periodic recertification. In-person application and recertification are more costly for the working low-income persons because the opportunity cost of their time is higher and they may have less available free time. It may be especially costly for people who work during traditional hours (for example, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) because they have a smaller time window to get to the food stamp office and may need to be absent from work to apply or be recertified for benefits. Certification policies provide another example of the increased cost of participation for the working low-income persons. In the late 1990s, many states shortened the certification period for households with a history of earned income to reduce the number of errors in the Food Stamp Program (Gabor and Botsko 2001).2 As a result, working food stamp recipients were required to return to the food stamp office for recertification even more often than non-working persons (Dion and Pavetti 2000). Furthermore, since food stamp benefits decline with income, working low-income persons face higher costs to participation for a smaller benefit amount.To provide an understanding of the relationship between employment and FSP participation, this analysis examines the employment characteristics and patterns of the working food stamp eligible population. In particular, we address three research questions:What are the detailed employment characteristics of low-income, working food stamp participating and non-participating households? Do household members work traditional hours? Are there multiple jobholders in the household? How many hours do household members work? Do they change jobs frequently? How do detailed measures of employment characteristics affect food stamp participation? Does labor force attachment affect participation? Are persons who work non-traditional hours more likely to participate? Does holding more than one job decrease the likelihood of participation? Does working more hours decrease the likelihood of participation? Do frequent job changes decrease the likelihood of participation? How has the relationship between employment factors and Food Stamp Program participation changed since federal welfare reform? Understanding the factors that affect participation decisions among working low-income individuals is necessary to ensure access to program benefits. Identifying these factors will shed light on how the Food Stamp Program is currently operating for the working low-income individuals and how it might be changed to better accommodate these individuals.