Marianne Bitler is a Professor in the Department of Economics at
the University of California, Davis; a Research Associate at the
National Bureau of Economic Research; and a Research Fellow at
IZA. She received her PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in 1998. Her research focuses on the effects of the US
social safety net on poverty, income, human capital, and health;
economics of the family; economics of education; and health
economics. She is currently serving on a National
Academies/Institute of Medicine/Food and Nutrition Board panel
that is reviewing the new food packages for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) and on a National Academies/CNSTAT panel that is evaluating
the revised Survey of Income and Program Participation.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has been shown to improve birth outcomes. When they reach the age of five, however, children become ineligible to receive it. In a recent study, we examined, for both adults and children, the nutritional and laboratory outcomes of this age-related loss of eligibility. We found little impact on children who aged out of the program, but adult women experienced reduced caloric intake and increased food insecurity.
December 2, 2022 – Three CPIR research affiliates have been featured in a new article in the ‘Ask the Expert’ series published by the UC Davis Office of Research.
Historically, Hispanic families have used means-tested assistance less than high-poverty peers, with anti-immigrant politics and policies potentially acting as a barrier. In a recent study, we documented the participation of Hispanic children in three anti-poverty programs: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). We compared across age and parental citizenship, and also explored the correlation of participation with state immigrant-based restrictions.
The COVID-19 crisis has hit low-income families especially hard. Unemployment rates have risen highest for those with lower levels of education, and for Black and Hispanic individuals. In response, the Families First Coronavirus Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act have made important provisions in response. Still, many are suffering, and tremendous need remains unmet. Food insecurity rates have increased almost three times over pre-COVID rates.
Food assistance is a large part of the food economy, with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) redemptions totaling $76 billion in 2013, representing more than 10 percent of sales at supermarkets. Such assistance is important to the millions of Americans who depend on it. Less clear until now has been how food assistance shapes the retail food environment. In a recent study, we set out to find out whether the rollout of Food Stamps during the 1960s and 1970s affected the retail environment.
During economic downturns the social safety net can play a
critical role for families as well as for the economy more
broadly. Social programs can protect vulnerable families by
making it easier for them to continue to meet basic needs. The
social safety net can also act as a fiscal stimulus — increasing
government spending when other spending is in retreat — and, in
so doing, prevent further job loss. However, over the past couple
of decades there has been an important shift in U.S.
A new rule to restrict legal immigration, published by the Trump
administration this month, is sowing confusion and anxiety even
among immigrants not directly affected by it, as fear spreads
faster than facts, immigration and health policy experts say.
The rule would allow the federal government to more easily deny
permanent residency status, popularly known as green cards, or
entry visas to applicants who use — or are deemed likely to use —
federally funded food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid.
Marianne Page, professor of economics at UC Davis, will lead a
team of experts from UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UCLA, UC
Santa Barbara and UCSF to shift from fragmented,
discipline-specific approaches of studying childhood disparities
to a multidisciplinary, comprehensive examination of the issue.
The project goal is to understand how health and nutrition
programs affect the health and development of disadvantaged
children, as well as build relationships with policymakers.
Center for Poverty Research (CPR) Director Marianne Page and
Faculty Affiliate Marianne Bitler will present their research
this month at the Institute
for Researchon
Poverty’s (IRP) annual summer research workshop.
Each June the workshop brings together poverty
scholars at all stages in their careers to present their research
on low-income populations.
Preschool interventions are arguably one of the most important
elements of support for poor families. Head Start, a federal
program for children in low-income families administered through
the Department of Health and Human Services, is a case in point.
While research shows a range of benefits lasting beyond preschool
for participants, evidence of the “fade-out” of cognitive gains
of the preschool years and the differential impact of the program
on children with different skill levels in the preschool
population has prompted debate over its efficacy.
The Great Recession led to unemployment rates unseen since the
deep recessions of the early 1980s. At the same time, significant
changes in the safety net both before and during the downturn
have changed the way we support children in vulnerable
households. In a new
study,[1] we examine how and to what extent the current
safety net provides protection to at-risk children during
economic downturns. We find that increases in unemployment affect
children in the poorest households most. We also find that while
the safety net is strongest at stabilizing household incomes for
these children, children in immigrant households get no
protection.
HILLARY CLINTON’S presidential campaign is premised, at least
implicitly, on the idea that if you liked her husband Bill
Clinton’s presidency, you’ll love hers. That’s understandable,
given that the period between 1993 and 2001 saw economic growth,
balanced budgets and declining crime. At the same time, it was
inevitable, and also fair, that her opponents in 2016 would
challenge this upbeat narrative.
Presidents are usually effusive, grandiose, and triumphant when
they sign major legislation that will form a huge part of their
legacy. In 1996, Bill Clinton’s announcement that he’d
sign a bill ending “welfare as we know it” was not that.
HILLARY CLINTON’S presidential campaign is premised, at least
implicitly, on the idea that if you liked her husband Bill
Clinton’s presidency, you’ll love hers. That’s understandable,
given that the period between 1993 and 2001 saw economic growth,
balanced budgets and declining crime. At the same time, it was
inevitable, and also fair, that her opponents in 2016 would
challenge this upbeat narrative.
This presentation by UC Davis economist Marianne Bitler describes
the US social safety net and the great strides made in
understanding our reformulated safety net in the last decade,
driven by a variety of advances in availability of new data, new
sources of variation, and creative research designs.
Much attention has been given to the large increase in safety net
spending, particularly in Unemployment Insurance and Food Stamp
spending, during the Great Recession. In this paper we examine
the relationship between poverty, the social safety net, and
business cycles historically and test whether there has been a
significant change in this relationship during the Great
Recession. We do so using an alternative measure of poverty that
incorporates taxes and in-kind transfers.
A UC Davis economist and Center for Poverty Research Faculty
Affiliate is taking part in an evaluation of the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC).
The project is being conducted by a committee organized by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at the
request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service. Its goal is to see if the redesigned WIC food packages
meet the goals of the program, which are to protect the health of
women, infants, and young children who are at risk of poor
nutrition.
