Draft copy only
Download 46.85 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Changes may be made up until the first class on Sept. 6, 2011.
- Class Attendance and Participation
- Weekly Reading Reflection Posts
- Policy Paper (borrowed from Timothy Smeeding)
- Topic Summary Due Thursday 9/15
- Part 3 Due Thursday 12/1
- December 15 th
- Mock Congressional Hearings
- Extra sessions will be held on the last two Tuesdays of the semester from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m
- Readings (Order Edin/Kefalas, DeParle, and Wilson from Amazon, CD with course readings in HKS library). Introduction
- MAJOR TOPIC AREAS ________________________________________________________________________ I. The Problem: Work
- The Policy Response: Education
- The Policy Response: Work
- II. The Problem: Neighborhoods
- The Policy Response: Neighborhoods
- ________________________________________________________________________ III. The Problem: Welfare
- The Policy Response: Welfare
- IV. The Problem: Families
- The Policy Response: Families
- Income Supplements/Human Capital.
- ________________________________________________________________________ V. The Problem: The Criminal Justice System
- The Policy Response: The Criminal Justice System/Other
| SUP-201 SYLLABUS
DRAFT COPY ONLY (DRAFT DATED – 8/23/2011) Please note this is not a final version of the syllabus. This draft is provided as an introduction and overview of the course. Full curriculum, reading, class discussion, questions, and assignments will be added soon. Revised drafts will be posted as they become available. Changes may be made up until the first class on Sept. 6, 2011. 
SUP-201 Kathy Edin Poverty and Social Policy Taubman 466 Fall Semester, ’11 – 1 Credit kathy_edin@hks.harvard.edu Faculty Assistant – Daphne Flowers Taubman 459B, daphne_flowers@hks.harvard.edu This course examines the causes and consequences of U.S. poverty and explores strategies for addressing it, with some comparisons to other rich nations. We cover the major theoretical explanations scholars have advanced to explain the persistence of poverty and inequality including labor markets, residential segregation, welfare policy, family structure, and the criminal justice system. Within each topic area, students are introduced to contemporary policy approaches aimed at alleviating poverty, and evaluations of these approaches.
Weekly Reading Responses 20 points 1 Research Brief (3-5 “published” pages) 15 points Mock Congressional Hearing Assignments 15 points Sequential Policy Analysis Paper (15-20 pages) 25 points Class Attendance and Participation Attendance will be taken at each class meeting, and the CAs will keep track of each student’s participation throughout the term. Because we only meet once per week, more than 2 unexcused absences will lower one’s grade substantially (up to a full letter grade). Excused absences must be approved by the instructor. Note that Tuesday, November 22 and Tuesday, November 29 are the days of our congressional briefings, so plan travel accordingly. Participation grades will be based on the quality, not the quantity, of participation. Verbal participation in class discussions is strongly encouraged. Weekly Reading Reflection Posts A 500-word reflection on all material assigned for the forthcoming week will be due by noon on Saturday. The reflections must be posted to the course website’s discussion board. Please copy/paste it in to the text box (so that other students can read it easily) and attach a Word file as well (which will help with the grading). If the discussion board not functioning properly, email your reflection to your CA before noon. and he/she will credit you with the post. Don’t wait beyond 11:00, as your response may register as late! Early posts are encouraged, and students may comment on earlier post in their postings. All posts will be graded on the thoughtfulness and creativity of the response and are not meant to be reviews of the reading. Make a special effort to respond to (not review) the starred readings. Posts that do not address the reading, or show poor understanding of the reading, will be given a grade of “check minus.” Check pluses will be relatively rare. Late posts are not accepted except under special circumstances and with preapproval from the instructor. Even so, they cannot receive better than a “check” grade. Responses are only due between September 9th and November 12th. Students may skip one response without penalty. Research Briefs Students will complete a research brief on one of the class modules, reviewing at least 5 of the readings. It must be on a topic not addressed in the student’s sequential paper. The format should resemble that used by Child Trends, examples of which are on the course disk. Each student will turn in a brief from this series that they’ve modeled their own brief upon. Briefs will summarize five of the readings for that topic area in a succinct, easily understood manner that makes the material easily accessible to policymakers, practitioners, and lay people interested in the topic. The format of the briefs should mimic the appearance of a published brief (using Microsoft Publisher, for example), and should include tables, figures, and so on. Briefs should correctly cite the literature they are summarizing and should not contain any factual errors. Briefs are due on the last day of class discussion on that module, as outlined in the syllabus. Late briefs are not accepted except under special circumstances and with preapproval from the instructor. Even so, they cannot receive better than a B grade. Policy Paper (borrowed from Timothy Smeeding) Students will describe and critically analyze a specific policy “problem,” three potential policy alternatives, and the pros and cons of each alternative. The paper will be graded on 1) the quality and thoroughness of analysis; 2) incorporation of research from academic and other sources; and 3) the clarity and organization of the presentation and the timely completion of the exercise. Students will submit the paper sequentially, on THURSDAYS, beginning with the topic summary (9/15), followed by part 1 (10/13), part 2 (11/17), and part 3 (12/1) to Daphne Flowers IN HARD COPY ON THURSDAY BY 3:00 P.M. of due-date weeks. The topic summary will not receive a grade but must be approved before part 1 is submitted. The instructor will offer feedback on each section of the paper about one week after it is submitted. Students may revise each section of the paper, for a maximum improvement of one letter grade.1 Revisions must be submitted along with the next section of the paper as it becomes due. Students will turn in their revised and final papers on December 15. No late assignments or final papers are accepted except under special circumstances and with preapproval from the instructor. Even so, they cannot receive better than a B grade. Topic Summary Due Thursday 9/15 A 1 paragraph description of the “problem” you will address in your paper, 3 class readings you will use in your literature review, plus at least 10 outside sources. MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE PART 1 OF PAPER CAN BE SUBMITTED. Part 1 Due Thursday 10/13 Can be resubmitted for a maximum change of one letter grade along with Part 2, when Part 2 is due. Part 2 Due Thursday 11/17 Can be resubmitted for a maximum change of one letter grade along with Part 3, when part 3 is due. THIS INCLUDES THE MATRIX. Part 3 Due Thursday 12/1 Can be resubmitted for a maximum change of one letter grade when final paper is due. ALL GRADED DRAFTS OF EACH SECTION OF THE PAPER MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE PAPER. NEW VERSIONS SUBMITTED FOR REGRADING MUST USE TRACK CHANGES SO CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFTS CAN BE ASSESSED.
Each student will advocate for their final policy recommendation from the Sequential Policy Analysis Paper in exactly 5 minutes of prepared remarks (a written form will be handed to the “committee” along with the testimony), as if offering testimony at a congressional hearing. In a session outside of their own, students will be assigned the role of congress-person and will ask one question each of the student. Students will be graded on both their written testimony and their oral presentation and performance in the Q and A. These will occur over four sessions, two in class sessions and two extra sessions outside of class, as indicated on the syllabus. Extra sessions will be held on the last two Tuesdays of the semester from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m., location TBA. You must be able to attend one of these extra sessions, plus one class session (the one they present at, and the one in which they take the role of congress-person). Students may skip the remaining 2 sessions in order to work on their sequential papers. Readings (Order Edin/Kefalas, DeParle, and Wilson from Amazon, CD with course readings in HKS library). Introduction 8/30 Shopping RG-20 8:40am - 9:55am Poverty and Inequality 9/6 Measuring Poverty Jason DeParle. August 27, 2006. “Orphaned.” New York Times Magazine. Clea Benson. March 23, 2009. “Changing Standards of ‘Poor’.” Congressional Quarterly Politics. Does Poverty Matter? *Juliana Sobolewski and Paul Amato. 2005. “Economic Hardship in the Family of Origin and Children’s Psychological Well-Being in Adulthood.” Journal of Marriage and Family. Volume 67. *J. Brian Brown and Daniel T. Lichter. 2006. “Childhood Disadvantage, Adolescent Development, and Pro-Social Behavior in Early Adulthood.” Advances in Life Course Research. Volume 11. *Pamela A. Morris, et al. 2001. How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Children: A Synthesis of Research. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Does Inequality Matter? Finis Welch. 1999. “In Defense of Inequality.” The American Economic Review. Volume 89, No. 2. Christopher Jencks. 2002. “Does Inequality Matter?” Daedalus. Winter. 9/8 (THURSDAY) SEQUENTIAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM SUMMARY AND REFERENCE LIST DUE TO DAPHNE FLOWERS by 3:00 p.m. 9/13 Who is Poor? What are the Dynamics of Poverty? Isaacs, Julia B. 2007. “Economic Mobility of Families Across Generations.” The Brookings Institution Report, Economic Mobility Project. Boo, Katherine. February 6, 2006. “Swamp Nurse.” The New Yorker. *Michael F. Förster and Koen Vleminckx. 2004. “International Comparisons of Income Inequality and Poverty: Findings from the Luxembourg Income Study.” Socio-Economic Review. Volume 2. *Isaacs, Julia B. and Isabel V. Sawhill. 2008. “Reaching for the Prize: The Limits on Economic Mobility.” The Milken Institute Review Fourth Quarter 2008: 18-27. Poverty and the 2008 Recession *Monea, E. & Sawhill, I. 2009. Simulating the effect of the ‘Great Recession’ on Poverty. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution. *Sherman, A., Greenstein, R., Trisi, D., & Van de Water, P. 2009. Poverty Rose, Median Income Declined, and Job-Based Health Insurance Continued to Weaken in 2008. Washington, D.C.: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. *Heidi Shierholz. 2009. New 2008 Poverty, Income Data Reveal only Tip of the Recession Iceberg. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Schwartzman, Paul. August 4, 2009. “For Many Americans, Nowhere to Go but Down.” The Washington Post. George Packer. 2009. “The Ponzi State.” The New Yorker 85, 1: 81. Barbara Ehrenreich. June 13, 2009. “Too Poor to Make the News.” New York Times. Deneen L. Brown. May 24, 2009. “The Hidden Costs of Living Below the Poverty Line.” Washington Post. _________________________________________________________________________III._The_Problem:_Welfare'>____________________________________________________________________________I._The_Problem:_Work'>MAJOR TOPIC AREAS ________________________________________________________________________ I. The Problem: Work 9/20 *William J. Wilson. 2009. More Than Just Race. New York: W.W. Norton. (Please pay particular attention to the first half of the book, especially Chapter 3). *Eliot Liebow. 1967. Tally’s Corner. New York: Little, Brown. (Chapter 2) *Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (Chapters 3 & 6) The Policy Response: Education *James J. Kemple with Cynthia J. Willner. 2008. Career Academies: Long-Term Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes, Educational Attainment, and Transitions to Adulthood. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (available on MDRC website). *David Deming. 2009. “Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from Head Start.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Volume 1, No. 3. *Lawrence J. Schweinhart. 2007. The HighScope/Perry Preschool Study through Age 40: Summary, Conclusions, and Frequently Asked Questions. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Educational Research Foundation (available on the HighScope Website). 10/4 The Policy Response: Work *Lisa A. Gennetian, Cynthia Miller, and Jared Smith. 2005. Turning Welfare into a Work Support: Six-Year Impacts on Parents and Children from the Minnesota Family Investment Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (Available on MDRC website). *Aletha C. Huston et al. 2005. “Impacts on Children of a Policy to Promote Employment and Reduce Poverty for Low-Income Parents: New Hope after 5 Years.” Developmental Psychology. Volume 41. Lawrence M. Mead. 2007. Toward a Mandatory Work Policy for Men. Future of Children. Volume 17, No. 2. Michael Cooper. July 29, 2009. “To Create Jobs, Tennessee Looks to New Deal Model.” New York Times. Adam Carasso and C. Eugene Steuerle. 2005. “The Hefty Penalty on Marriage Facing Many Households with Children.” Future of Children. Volume 15, No. 2. Nada Eissa and Hilary Hoynes. 2006. “Behavioral Responses to Taxes: Lessons from the EITC and Labor Supply.” Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 20. *Ruby Mendenhall et al. 2010. “The Role of the Earned Income Tax Credit in the Budgets of Low-Income Families.” Under review, Journal of Management and Policy. *Gordon Berlin. 2007. “Rewarding the Work of Individuals: A Counterintuitive Approach to Reducing Poverty and Strengthening Families.” Future of Children. Volume 17, No. 2. 10/6 (THURSDAY) **WORK RESEARCH BRIEFS DUE** 10/13 (THURSDAY) SEQUENTIAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT PART 1 DUE ________________________________________________________________________ II. The Problem: Neighborhoods 10/18 *William Julius Wilson. 1990. “Studying Inner-City Social Dislocations: The Challenge of Public Agenda Research.” American Sociological Review. Volume 56, No. 1. *Paul Jargowski. 2003. Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: Concentration of Poverty in the 1990s. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution Center for Urban and Metropolitan Poverty. *Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton. 1993. American Apartheid. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Chapters 2 and 3) *Charles, Camille Z. 2003. “The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation.” Annual Review of Sociology. Volume 29. The Policy Response: Neighborhoods *Orr, Larry, et al. 2003. Moving to Opportunity: Interim Impacts Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of Housing and Urban Development (READ ONLY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY). *Susan Clampet-Lundquist et al. 2011. “Moving At-Risk Teenagers Out of High-Risk Neighborhoods: Why Girls Fare Better than Boys.” American Journal of Sociology, forthcoming. Jennifer Pashup-Graham et al. 2004. “Take Up in the New Gautreaux Program.” Housing Policy Debate. Volume 18, Nos. 3 & 4. *Kristen Turney et al. 2006. “Neighborhood Effects on Barriers to Employment: Results from a Randomized Housing Mobility Experiment in Baltimore.” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs. DeLuca, Stefanie and Peter Rosenblatt. 2010. “Does Moving To Better Neighborhoods Lead to Better Schooling Opportunities? Parental School Choice in an Experimental Housing Voucher Program.” Teachers College Record. Volume 112, No. 5. *Paul C. Brophy and Rhonda N. Smith. 1997. “Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success. Cityscape. Volume 3, No. 2. 10/20 (THURSDAY) **NEIGHBORHOOD RESEARCH BRIEFS DUE** ________________________________________________________________________ III. The Problem: Welfare 10/25 *Jason De Parle. 2004. American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids and the Nation’s Drive to End Welfare. New York: Viking. (Chapters 1-5) *Dan Bloom and Charles Michalopoulos. 2001. How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Employment and Income: A Synthesis of Research. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (Available at MDRC Website). The Policy Response: Welfare *Ron Haskins. 2006. Work Over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. Washington: The Brookings Institution. (Chapter 13) Blank, Rebecca. 2002. “Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature. Volume 40, No. 4. *Douglas Besharov. (Winter) 2003. “The Past and Future of Welfare Reform.” The Public Interest. *Rebecca Blank. 2007. “Improving the Safety Net for Single Mothers Who Face Serious Barriers to Work.” Future of Children. Volume 17, No. 2. Ehrenreich, Barbara. July 11, 2009. “A Homespun Safety Net.” The New York Times. 10/27 (THURSDAY) **WELFARE RESEARCH BRIEFS DUE** IV. The Problem: Families 11/1 Edin, Kathryn and Rebecca Joyce Kissane. 2010. “Poverty and the American Family.” Journal of Marriage and the Family. Volume 73, No. 3. *McLanahan, Sara and Christine Percheski. 2008. “Family Structure and the Reproduction of Inequalities.” Annual Review of Sociology. Volume 34. *Gunnar Andersson. 2001. “Children’s Experiences of Family Disruption and Family Formation: Evidence from 16 FFS Countries.” Rostick, Germany: Max Plank Institute for Demographic Research. *Andrew Cherlin. 2004. “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family. Volume 66, No. 4. *Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women put Motherhood before Marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Chapters 1-4, 7) Christina Gibson-Davis. 2007. “Expectations and the Economic Bar to Marriage Among Low Income Couples.” Unmarried Couples with Children. Paula England and Kathryn Edin, Eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Barack Obama. June 21, 2009. “We Need Fathers to Step Up.” Parade Magazine. 11/8 The Policy Response: Families Daniel T. Lichter et al. 2003. “Is Marriage a Panacea? Union Formation among Economically Disadvantaged Unwed Mothers.” Social Problems. Volume 50. Paul R. Amato and Rebecca A. Maynard. 2007. “Decreasing Nonmarital Births and Strengthening Marriage to Reduce Poverty.” Future of Children. Volume 17, No. 2. Robert Rector. January 13, 2009. Reducing Poverty by Revitalizing Marriage in Low-Income Communities: A Memo to President-Elect Obama.” New York: Heritage Foundation (available on the Heritage Foundation website). *Robert J. Wood et al. 2010. Strengthening Unmarried Parents’ Relationships: The Early Impacts of Building Strong Families. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research (available on the MPR website). Income Supplements/Human Capital. *Anna Gossman-Pines and Hirokazu Yoshikawa. 2006. “Five-Year Effects of an Anti-Poverty Program among Never-Married Mothers.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Volume 23, No. 4. *Lisa A. Gennetian. 2003. The Long-Term Effects of the Minnesota Family Investment Program on Marriage and Divorce among Two-Parent Families (Available on the MDRC website). *REREAD James J. Kemple with Cynthia J. Willner. 2008. Career Academies: Long-Term Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes, Educational Attainment, and Transitions to Adulthood. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (available on MDRC website). 11/10 (THURSDAY) **FAMILY RESEARCH BRIEFS DUE** ________________________________________________________________________ V. The Problem: The Criminal Justice System 11/15 *Devah Pager. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology. Volume 108, No. 5. *Bruce Western and Becky Pettit. 2004. “Mass Imprisonment and the Lifecourse: Race and Class Inequality in U.S. Incarceration.” American Sociological Review. Volume 29, No. 2. The Policy Response: The Criminal Justice System/Other *Dan Bloom. 2006. Employment Focused Programs for Ex-Prisoners: What have we Learned, What are we Learning, and Where should we Go from Here? New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (available on the MDRC website). *Emily Jacobs and Bruce Western. 2006. Report on the evaluation of the COMALERT prisoner re-entry program (available on Harvard University website—Bruce Western/Sociology). Francis T. Cullen. 2004. “The Twelve People who Saved Rehabilitation.” Criminology. Volume 43, No. 1. *REREAD Perry Preschool, Head Start, and Career Academy reports 11/17 (THURSDAY) SEQUENTIAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT PART TWO DUE **CJ RESEARCH BRIEFS DUE** 11/22 Mock Congressional Hearings – Group 1 11/22 (special session) 4:30-6:30 p.m.—Group 2 11/29 Mock Congressional Hearings – Group 3 11/29 (special session) 4:30-6:30 p.m.—Group 4 12/1 (THURSDAY) SEQUENTIAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT PART III DUE 12/15 FINAL PAPER DUE (HARDCOPY ONLY) 1 If the instructor recommends a topic change, there is no limit on the maximum improvement of the required revision. Directory: syllabus -> 2012 syllabus -> Catalog description syllabus -> MA180 and ma418 statistics, Fall 2012 syllabus -> Engineering Design and Sustainability syllabus -> Principles and Algorithms of Computer Vision 2012 -> 408ADialects 2 Units Fall 2012 Monday/Wednesday 10: 30 to 11: 20 a m 2012 -> 408ADialects 2 Units Fall 2012 9 a m. Monday/Wednesday 2012 -> John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Spring 2012 ped-308: Social Institutions and Economic Development 2012 -> Industry Structure, Strategy, and Public Policy Download 46.85 Kb. Share with your friends:
|