October 7, 2026

Economic View: Public Policies, Made to Fit People

I HAVE written here before about the potential gains to government from involving social and behavioral scientists in designing public policies. My enthusiasm comes in part from my experiences as an academic adviser to the Behavioral Insights Team created in Britain by Prime Minister David Cameron.

Thus I was pleased to hear reports that the White House is building a similar initiative here in the United States. Maya Shankar, a cognitive scientist and senior policy adviser at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is coordinating this cross-agency group, called the Social and Behavioral Science Team; it is part of a larger effort to use evidence and innovation to promote government performance and efficiency. I am among a number of academics who have shared ideas with the administration about how research findings in social and behavioral science can improve policy.

It makes sense for social scientists to become more involved in policy, because many of society’s most challenging problems are, in essence, behavioral. Using social scientists’ findings to create plausible interventions, then testing their efficacy with randomized controlled trials, can improve — and sometimes save — people’s lives, all while reducing the need for more government spending to fix problems later.

Here are three examples of social science issues that have attracted the team’s attention:

THE 30-MILLION-WORD GAP One of society’s thorniest problems is that children from poor families start school lagging badly behind their more affluent classmates in readiness. By the age of 3, children from affluent families have vocabularies that are roughly double those of children from poor families, according to research published in 1995.

The research found that one of many reasons that poor children often have difficulty learning to read is that they suffer at home from what might be called a “word deficiency.” The caregivers of these children simply don’t speak or read to them as often as those in better-off families. The study estimated that by age 3, a poor child would have heard 30 million fewer words than a child growing up in a family of higher socioeconomic status.

Until recently, this word gap has been hard to address. One promising new approach is being tested by Dr. Dana Suskind, a professor of surgery and pediatrics at the University of Chicago. Parents or caregivers who want to improve their children’s language skills can be coached to improve their interactions with them. (For example, interactive exchanges are better than soliloquies.)

New technologies, like the digital language processor developed by the LENA Research Foundation, whose work focuses on language problems in young children, can aid in this effort by letting parents receive feedback on the frequency and nature of their verbal interactions with their children. (Think of it as a box score for those interactions.) Providence, R.I., has won a $5 million grant from the Bloomberg Philanthropies for a Providence Talks program to use these kinds of techniques to improve school readiness for low-income children.

In this domain, the team’s role is multifaceted. There is no silver bullet for closing the word gap, but by encouraging more trials nationwide, providing evaluation expertise and distributing results, we can help give poor children their best chance to succeed.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE The team will primarily lend support and expertise to federal agency initiatives. One example concerns the effort to reduce domestic violence, a problem for which there is no quick fix. But a good place to start is to ensure that each component of a victim’s support system works as well as it can. One such component is the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which victims can call for advice and support. Like other call-in centers, it can become busy and put callers on hold. Many victims hang up before they’ve had a chance to speak with a counselor.

In this case, the Administration for Children and Families is building an alliance of call centers to collaborate on experimental trials to see how best to keep callers on the line long enough to get assistance. Avoiding long periods of silence with callers, and offering an estimate of the waiting time, can help achieve that goal. So can composing the initial message in a way that maximizes the chances that a caller won’t hang up.

HEALTH COMPLIANCE One reason for high health care costs is that patients fail to follow their treatment regimen.

A good way to approach this problem is via a behavioral assessment, identifying obstacles to that compliance. As Sendhil Mullainathan, a Harvard economist, discussed in this space recently, one such obstacle is the co-payment, the patient’s share of a treatment’s cost. He sensibly suggests that for some highly effective treatments, there should be no co-payment at all. That’s a good place to start.

A thorough assessment could also uncover other factors that reduce patients’ adherence to best medical practices. If forgetting to take a medicine is the problem, a variety of interventions can help — from changing the medication’s design (a once-a-day dose is easier to remember than one taken three times a day) to using technology that reminds patients to take their pills.

Similarly, offering phone or text reminders of medical appointments can reduce no-shows and ensure that lab tests are done on time. Information technology makes these mental crutches easy to use, and is the focus of the team’s collaboration with the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

All of these examples show that the role of behavioral science in policy isn’t for the government to tell people how to think or act. It is to help them achieve their own goals. Parents want their children to excel, callers to a victims’ hot line want help, and sick people want to get well. Offering aids is like providing an alarm clock: it may help people get to an appointment on time, but no one is forcing them to use it.

Richard H. Thaler is a professor of economics and behavioral science at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago. He has informally advised the Obama administration.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/business/public-policies-made-to-fit-people.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Big City: Gentrifying Into the Shelters

Several months earlier, the brisk sale of properties in the area had reached another high point, when an 1885 Queen Anne townhouse designed by the active turn-of-the-century Brooklyn architects the Parfitt Brothers sold for more than $2 million, making it the most expensive residential real-estate sale in Bedford-Stuyvesant’s history, according to the Web site Brownstoner. Chic bars and restaurants proliferate now, leaving Bedford-Stuyvesant as much a refuge from trendiness as the South is a refuge from college football.

Those unburdened by skepticism about gentrification argue that it is an ample elevator, lifting up everyone: with renovations come the need for those to lay the subway tiles; with enotecas come the need for those to serve the verdicchio. And yet how often does the waitress pouring the wine in a marginal neighborhood look like someone rescued from grim financial despair rather than a slightly younger, and often more fashionable, version of the person drinking it? What has happened in Bedford-Stuyvesant does not easily comply with an optimistic view of transformation. Since 2005, according to the Department of Homeless Services, it has ranked among the city’s top five communities sending families into the shelter system, representing approximately 5 percent of all family shelter entrants.

What causes some poor families to fall into homelessness and others to sustain themselves, however precariously, is a difficult question that has challenged social scientists and policy makers for a long time. The vexing inquiry — the inevitable multivariate answers — have made targeted prevention a relatively new endeavor, despite how logical a solution it might seem. It was not until 2004 that the city initiated a program called Homebase, which went into neighborhoods like Bedford-Stuyvesant that send the greatest number of people into homelessness, with the goal of reducing it. Homebase has sought to keep at-risk families out of the shelter system and in their communities with emergency rental assistance, landlord mediation and links to social services.

This is a good idea — with a federal funding stream, at a time when federal money for subsidized housing has been drastically curtailed — but it has had only negligible success. Recently, the city released the results of a study it had conducted, which looked at the outcomes for a sample of 295 families, 150 of them in receipt of Homebase services and a control group of 145 that was not. Between 2010 and 2012, the families receiving services spent about 22.6 fewer nights in shelters on average than those that were not part of Homebase. Though this is a statistically significant result, it is hardly an impressive one, especially in light of the fact that the average stay for a family in the shelter system is now 13 months, up from 9 months in 2011, and the city is experiencing record levels of homelessness with 50,000 people, including 21,000 children, in shelters every night.

Is the current understanding of prevention too narrow? Do neighborhoods need to be stabilized long before so many families find themselves so close to the precipice? Reason would seem to say yes. The city’s self-analysis, conducted by various academics, places little credence in the impact of the housing market on homelessness. But a report released last month by the Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, a research and policy group, presents a convincing set of facts to defend the notion of causality.

Examining demographic data from Bedford-Stuyvesant and neighboring Brownsville, the study illustrates how those living in poverty might lose their ability to exist on limited resources when the fortunes of a neighborhood dramatically change. Between 2005 and 2010, the median rent, adjusted for inflation, swelled in Bedford-Stuyvesant and Brownsville by more than 22 percent, while the median household income of renters over that same period did not remotely keep pace. (In Bedford-Stuyvesant, the figure rose only 4.7 percent and in Brownsville, income decreased.)

What happens in a scenario like this one is that the poor are not simply competing with wealthier newcomers for limited housing; the poor are competing with one another. Given the west to east progression of gentrification in northern Brooklyn, the study concluded some faction of low-income residents priced out of Bedford-Stuyvesant have presumably moved to Brownsville, an even more depressed neighborhood, thus creating intense competition in a housing market for those least able to engage in it. Brownsville continues to rank among the communities sending the greatest number of families into the shelter system; public housing, despite its high concentration in the neighborhood, only serves a minority of residents.

The Democratic candidates running for mayor all understand that the city needs more affordable housing, and some have proposed innovative ways of paying for it. Nearly everyone agrees that the city needs to create more economic opportunity for those who have the least access to it. But there has been less conversation about how important economic diversity is to the health of neighborhoods. It is not simply that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, as the aphorism goes. The poor are poorer in isolation — and islands can be scary places.

E-mail: bigcity@nytimes.com

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/nyregion/gentrifying-into-the-shelters.html?partner=rss&emc=rss