Emmanuel Saez: California Should Pass a Small Tax on Big Wealth

Emmanuel Saez recently co-authored an op-ed in the LA Times on how the California tax system favors the ultra-rich and the importance of fixing it. He argues that while the “ordinary rich” pays their fair share in income taxes, California’s billionaires escape this by holding on to stock and not taking cash salaries.

Check out the full op-ed here.

Enrico Moretti on Remote Work and American Supercities

Enrico Moretti was recently interviewed in a Vox article on the future of American supercities post-pandemic. In the article, Moretti explains why people have historically tended to cluster geographically and why the benefits of agglomeration economies cannot fully be obtained from remote work.

Check out the full article here.

Hilary Hoynes: Family Stipends Help Lift Children Out of Poverty

Childhood poverty has been linked to a number of developmental delays that can last well into adulthood and continue the cycle of poverty for generations. In a recent NPR article on the subject, O-Lab Director Hilary Hoynes explains how providing additional income support to low-income families and single mothers can improve long-term educational outcomes, reduce criminal activity, and improve the health of children growing up in poor households. Check out the full story here.

Ellora Derenoncourt: Raising the Minimum Wage is a Necessary Step in Achieving Equity for Black Workers

Ellora Derenoncourt was featured on NPR in a recent story on what life is like for Americans making under $15 an hour. Derenoncourt explains the history of the minimum wage in the U.S., including how one of the demands of the 1963 March on Washington was a $2 national minimum wage (over $15 today adjusted for inflation). She also draws upon her own research, which demonstrates the powerful effect that raising the minimum wage would have for Black workers. Check out the full story here.

Tax Uncertainty, Gig Worker Preferences, and the Impact of Outside Options on Wages

In Fall 2020, O-lab welcomed Sydnee Caldwell as one of its newest affiliates. To introduce her work, we have spotlighted a few of her recent projects, along with their potential implications for understanding the gig economy and the low-wage labor market.

Sydnee Caldwell joined the UC Berkeley faculty in July 2020 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics and the Haas School of Business. Her appointment marks a return for Sydnee, who also attended Cal as an undergraduate, earning a dual bachelor’s degree in applied mathematics and economics in 2008.

Her recent research focuses on different forms of worker compensation and on how uncertainty around the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) affects behavior and outcomes for low-wage workers. Prior to returning to Berkeley as a faculty member, Sydnee served as a post-doctoral researcher at Microsoft Research New England. She earned her PhD in economics from MIT in 2019.

Tax Refund Uncertainty: Evidence and Welfare Implications (with Scott Nelson & Daniel Waldinger)

In this 2021 working paper, Caldwell and her colleagues focus on how low-income individuals understand and predict the amount of earnings they are likely to receive through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC is one of the country’s most powerful anti-poverty programs, and for those low-income families who receive it, the credit can make up a substantial portion of their total annual income. Accurately anticipating the size of the EITC is therefore a crucial part of household budgeting and decision-making for these families. Due in part to the complexity of the tax code, however, it can be very difficult for filers to anticipate their tax liabilities and credits.

To understand the scale of this problem, as well as potential policy solutions, Caldwell and her colleagues used a combination of administrative tax data, credit bureau data, and survey data on individuals’ tax refund expectations. The data was collected through the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) tax preparation centers in Boston to gather information about individuals’ expectations of their refund amounts. A low-income tax filer’s expectations were then compared to the actual refunds they received. When asked to predict their EITC refund amount within a $1,000 interval, the authors found that a quarter of individuals were “not certain at all” that their prediction would be correct.

Their research suggests that uncertainty impacts how people choose to consume and borrow; those who were more uncertain going into tax season tended to repay less of their credit card debt after they received the refund, for example. The refund uncertainty distorts recipients’ consumption-savings choices and causes a 10 percent loss in the the value of the EITC.

Uber vs Taxi: A driver’s Eye View (with Joshua Angrist & Jonathan Hall)

As the gig economy continues to grow, understanding worker compensation models and worker preferences will be critical to crafting fair rules and payment structures. In this paper in the American Economics Journal in Applied Economics (forthcoming 2021), Sydnee Caldwell and her co-authors partnered with Uber to compare drivers’ preferences under two different potential compensation models. In the first, drivers pay a fixed payment independent of their earnings; this compensation structure is the standard model for most conventional taxi drivers. In the second model, rideshare drivers pay a portion of their earnings per ride, a commission that Uber charges drivers for every ride drivers provide; this second model is the standard model for most “rideshare” programs. Caldwell and her colleagues find that a taxi-like model is (a) more efficient, and (b) results in higher net wages for drivers, since drivers keep any income they make in excess of the fixed payment.  To explore if Uber drivers would prefer the taxi-like option, the authors partnered with Uber to offer drivers an opt-in taxi-like contract where they could pay a fixed payment instead of the usual Uber commission fee per ride. Sydnee says, “we find that drivers who would have earned higher wages under the taxi-like model don’t opt in. Our explanation for this is that drivers are loss averse.” In other words, drivers are averse to the scenario where they cannot make enough trips to cover the fixed payment and will give up the possibility of higher earnings in favor of greater flexibility to work as much or as little as they want. The authors find that drivers were often uncertain about how much they were going to work in a given week, which likely contributed to their aversion to the fixed payment since they were unsure about their ability to drive enough to cover the lump sum cost. 

The results of this paper will be important in understanding and creating rules to govern “gig jobs” and other emerging labor markets where workers can choose how much to work. There is a serious ongoing policy debate about how gig workers should be classified---whether as independent contractors or as employees---and how they should be compensated. “When we started the project,” Sydnee said, “we expected to see that drivers who drive a relatively high amount of time would prefer the “taxi-like” scheme, and that drivers who drive a relatively low amount would not. However, we found that…these taxi-like schemes are perhaps less popular than you would expect, even among drivers who would have benefited a great deal.”

Outside Options, Bargaining, and Wages: Evidence From Coworker Networks (with Nikolaj Harmon)

In Caldwell’s job market paper, she sought to understand the extent to which changes outside of an individual's labor market impact the wages that they may earn at their current job. For example, would a change in a firm competitor’s demand for workers, or a change in their salary ranges, influence wages at one’s current employer?

Using employer/employee data from Denmark, Caldwell and her co-authors find that consistent with economic theory, demands for labor at one firm will induce greater firm-to-firm mobility and will drive up wages at competing firms. These increases were driven largely by information sharing, and were most pronounced among those in the top half of the skills distribution. Access to information about increases in demand for workers at one firm is critical for workers in another firm to leverage the information and increase their wages at their current firm. An interesting finding of this paper - and one which Sydnee hopes to explore further in the future - was that within each skill group, women benefit less than men from information about outside options. Caldwell said there are many reasons why women might be getting a smaller bump from outside options, including the potential that they are less inclined to negotiate or are punished for negotiating. These options are the subject of a growing literature in economics, and questions Caldwell hopes to look into more in the future.

How Place-Based Climate Policy Can Reduce Climate Emissions

How does a community’s built environment and access to public goods impact their carbon emissions? How does income inequality impact peoples’ options for reducing carbon emissions? Fifth-year PhD candidate and O-Lab fellow Eva Lyubich is exploring these questions in an ongoing set of projects focused on how place-based climate strategies might help curb climate emissions. Eva’s research interests lie at the intersection of climate policy, inequality, and public goods provisions, and she is particularly focused on finding viable solutions to mitigate the climate crisis. 

In ongoing work, Eva is studying whether place-based climate policies - climate policies focused on local investments in climate mitigation solutions - would be more effective than carbon taxes at reducing carbon emissions. Economists typically suggest that carbon taxes force people to privately account for the harm they contribute to globally. However, people’s ability to substitute away from dirty energy consumption is highly dependent on alternatives available to them on a local level. “If certain public goods investments have the capacity to reduce carbon emissions for many people all at once, then it may be more efficient to make investments in public goods rather than relying on individuals to make private investments on their own,” she said. For example, policies that change the built environment of a community, such as making it more walkable, bikeable, or investing in public transit reduce carbon emissions while positively benefiting a community by increasing the available transportation options.

Eva’s motivation for this paper came from “the idea that individuals are constrained by the choices they can make and could therefore be limited in their ability to reduce their individual carbon footprints.” A few of the questions behind this research agenda include: How do characteristics of places constrain our ability to reduce emissions? Would people change their behaviors if we changed the characteristics of a place? Do people drive because they don’t have access to high quality public transit or do they like driving and will they drive everywhere regardless of if they have access to a public transit system? Eva is trying to estimate what share of geographic variation in carbon emissions is driven by characteristics and policies governing the places people live in versus differences in people’s preferences.

“Individuals are constrained by the choices they can make and could therefore be limited in their ability to reduce their individual carbon footprints.

In this project, Eva estimates what share of emissions are place-based using what is known as a mover design, in which she studies how people’s emissions change as they move to different places. She hopes to use these estimates to inform what type of investments and what geographic locations have the highest benefit to cost ratio in reducing overall emissions. According to Eva, “this research has the potential to help local, state, and federal governments determine where we should be investing to make the highest emissions reductions.” An example of an existing program that is making place-based climate investments is the California Climate Investments initiative, which uses cap-and-trade revenues to fund community-based projects for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in  disadvantaged communities.

“This research has the potential to help local, state, and federal governments determine where we should be investing to make the highest emissions reductions.

More broadly, Eva plans to study the consequences of income inequality on our collective ability to address the climate crisis. The availability of a community’s options to reduce their carbon footprint is highly impacted by the distribution of public goods, which is largely dependent on the income distributions of a community. Income inequality and mitigating the climate crisis go hand in hand. “In a future project, I hope to study how the distributions of public goods and income inequality intersect with climate policy effectiveness. Does income inequality across communities prevent climate policy from being successful?” Eva’s research projects have great potential to influence social policies, climate policies, and secure our planet’s future.

Zach Bleemer: Banning Affirmative Action Has Immediate Effects on College Applications

This fall, 57% of California voters voted to reject the restoration of affirmative action in college admissions. O-Lab fellow Zach Bleemer’s research shows that the ban on affirmative action in California has had the effect of deterring Black and Latino students from applying to college. The NY Times cited this work in an October editorial. Read the Times piece here, and take a look at Bleemer’s research!

Jesse Rothstein: Graduates Starting Their Careers in a Recession will Face Long-Term Economic Scarring

Jesse Rothstein’s research on the long-term economic scarring of the Great Recession was cited in a Washington Post column by Catherine Rampell. Rampell argues that, without significant new economic stimulus to mitigate the effects of the recession, today’s college grads will face long-term negative impacts on earnings, health, and a range of other outcomes.

Check out the Op-Ed here.

Read more of Rothstein’s research on economic scarring here.

Examining Incomplete Take-Up of Safety Net Programs

Not all individuals enroll in the public programs and claim the assistance for which they’re eligible. Why? Do families not know programs exist or not know they’re eligible? Is it too time-consuming or complicated to enroll or stay enrolled? Or perhaps receiving this type of assistance is too stigmatized? Does the importance of these explanations vary by program and across different communities? And what can policymakers do to promote take-up of these critical programs?                                                                                                                                     

These questions have been the focus of multiple research projects pursued by Matt Unrath, a fourth-year PhD candidate in public policy. As a Research Fellow at the California Policy Lab (CPL), Unrath has had the opportunity to study these questions and experimentally test possible solutions at a large scale. Through CPL’s partnership with the California Department for Social Services and the Franchise Tax Board, he and his colleagues spent years building an administrative dataset linking state welfare enrollment records to state-level tax records. This dataset has proved a critical tool, allowing CPL researchers to examine participation in California’s means-tested welfare programs and eligibility like never before. 

For example, Unrath and his coauthors ran a number of randomized controlled trials to test the impact of providing information about the federal and state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) on take-up of the program among eligible Californians. The team sent this information via hundreds of thousands of letters and text messages to eligible households to see what kind of information and what type of nudge would cause people to file their taxes and claim the benefit. Using matching tax records data, the researchers were able to determine whether or not the people who received information were more likely to claim the EITC.

The result? “None of our interventions worked,” Matt said. “We can rule out that we nudged anyone to file by just providing them this information.” These findings indicate that there is a limit to nudge-style outreach programs and what just providing more information can accomplish in this context. Additionally, Matt and his coauthors conclude that information is not the barrier to increased take-up in this instance. “If we really want to increase take-up of programs that are delivered through the tax system, we should think about how to make tax filing a lot easier,” Unrath concludes.

His team is now working to measure take-up of the state-level EITC supplement in California. “We really don’t know how many people claim the California EITC supplement because all of our measures of take-up are done nationally,” Matt explains. By aligning Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, household data and tax data in California, “Could we create a model for states across the country to use their state administrative data to identify these likely eligible people and measure take-up of their own state-level EITC programs?”

In forthcoming work, Unrath also examines the effect of administrative burdens on enrollment in CalFresh, the SNAP program in California. Using fifteen years of administrative data for the country’s largest SNAP program, he documents a significant drop off in enrollment every six months, when participants are required to recertify their income eligibility in order to maintain benefits. Linking CalFresh data to state earnings records, he finds that, “The great majority of people appear to be income-eligible even when they exit the program.”

These projects point to the role that administrative procedures play in affecting program participation. Unrath points out that these processes are an inevitable feature of our choice to means-test safety net programs; the government needs to identify who is eligible, and that will impose some costs on applicants and enrollees. Some economists have posited that making these processes even more burdensome might discourage those on the margin of eligibility from enrolling, enabling more assistance to be targeted to individuals and families that are the least well-off. But do administrative burdens actually operate in this way? 

“People are aware that making processes harder deters participation, but what we don’t know as well empirically is who these processes are more likely to deter from participating. The concern is that we are not doing the right thing, and we are actually deterring folks who are more disadvantaged,” Unrath explains.

Contrary to theory, “You can imagine an alternative framework in which these burdens deter the folks who are the most disadvantaged, who face the most burdens in their daily lives, and who are least able to handle all the paperwork they need to file in order to apply for and stay enrolled in a program,” he adds. The database that CPL have constructed should enable Unrath and his colleagues to evaluate whether these administrative processes have this effect..

Unrath’s research is highly relevant for policymakers, many of whom are very concerned about incomplete take-up of the EITC in their states. In the short term, he points out, “The pandemic shines a spotlight on how to think about the administrative process of getting payments to people quickly and efficiently.” Longer-term, he adds, “There’s a lot of momentum in California to try to begin to use the matched dataset programmatically on an ongoing basis,” following CPL’s novel efforts in this area.

Ellora Derenoncourt and Claire Montialoux on Wages and Racial Equity

Recent research by Ellora Derenoncourt and Claire Montialoux reveals how increases in the federal minimum wage benefited Black workers. In recent decades however, the racial wage gap has increased again. Their work was cited in a recent NY Times column by David Leonhardt. Take a look!

Sol Hsiang on global COVID response policies: No Human Endeavor Has Saved So Many Lives in Such a Short Period of Time

O-Lab Affiliate Sol Hsiang, and his collegues at the Global Policy Lab, have produced new research on the lives saved due to COVID response policies and behaviors. The team looks closely at 6 countries and estimates that response policies have prevented a total of over 500 million COVID infections.

The work was published in Nature and Hsiang discussed the findings on the Rachel Maddow Show.

Mitigating Burnout Among Frontline Public-Sector Workers

In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, there has never been a greater focus on frontline workers. While much of the country continues to shelter in place, frontline workers are tasked with mounting the direct response to the pandemic as well as ensuring that essential government services are maintained. Frontline workers—many of them public sector employees—are crucial to an effective pandemic response, but these workers are facing exceptionally high levels of burnout and anxiety given stressful working conditions. Understanding what can be done to mitigate burnout amongst frontline workers is an increasingly urgent question for policymakers.

Faculty Director of The People Lab and O-Lab faculty affiliate Elizabeth Linos is well-placed to address this question. As a public management scholar and behavioral scientist, Linos’ research examines how to improve government using tools from both economics and psychology. In particular, she focuses on people in government, and through her work with The People Lab, works directly with governments to design and evaluate programs focused on improving strategies to better recruit, retain, and motivate public servants. Her research is motivated by efforts to understand and improve interactions between government workers and residents in order to identify ways to improve the responsiveness of government to its residents.

In this O-Lab Q&A, Linos discusses her latest research on frontline worker burnout as well as the shifting narratives and trends for frontline workers in the coronavirus era. She explains the important findings from her experimental study—one of the largest field experiments of its kind to-date—evaluating how to mitigate burnout and turnover among 911 dispatchers using low-cost, behaviorally-informed interventions. Finally, Linos discusses her own priorities for future research as well as the exciting potential for entirely new areas of research linked to frontline public sector workers.  

Given the ongoing pandemic, there is more attention than ever on the role of essential and other frontline workers. Can you describe how you think about frontline workers in this context and how your research ties into these discussions?

Elizabeth Linos: I'm very grateful and optimistic that people have been recognizing the importance of frontline workers as essential workers. With the pandemic, obviously there are many people who can't shelter in place. Some of them we highlight, like health workers. Others we should highlight more, like people who work at grocery stores and gas stations, or who are collecting our trash. But there's actually a huge group of public sector workers who are keeping the trains running by going to work, and often we don't see them. This is an opportunity to highlight the importance of having an effective government workforce because, without them, we couldn't possibly have an effective covid response.

The work that I've been doing lately tries to understand not only what motivates frontline workers, but also what barriers they face to be able to do their job well. And that's led me into a lot of research around burnout and anxiety. I've focused on professions or occupations where we've seen really high turnover rates over the past few years, and where it's been really hard to hire enough people to deliver services. The level of burnout and anxiety amongst those groups was high before, but during covid, it's shockingly high. Right now, we're finding that sometimes anxiety rates are 20 times higher than under normal circumstances. This is a huge challenge not only for the current crisis, but also to ensure that we will have frontline workers in the next few years that are able to deliver services over time.

Why did you look at 911 dispatchers specifically? 

Linos: The 911 dispatcher project came from government partners who asked me to work on it. When I first got the calls, I was working for the Behavioural Insights Team, which is a team of behavioral scientists that works with governments to help them use behavioral science to deliver better services. One question I kept getting from various cities was about 911 dispatchers: “They have really high levels of absenteeism. We can't keep them. They keep quitting. You say you're interested in people in government. Can you figure it out?”

“Feeling like people understand and value what you do seems to be highly correlated with lower levels of burnout. So, we started a project with 911 dispatchers across nine different cities to better understand why people were feeling burnt out and what we can do about it.

That kept happening, and after a while, I realized that this is a group of people who are really undervalued. In law enforcement, there's a lot of status placed on police officers in different settings. In society, we have a lot of respect for firefighters, but the people who actually pick up the phone when you call 911 are often less respected. Even in federal categorization, they're often considered call center workers, so they don't get a lot of the benefits and the privileges that emergency responders get. I've now found in my research that being undervalued actually is really important. Feeling like people understand and value what you do seems to be highly correlated with lower levels of burnout. So, we started a project with 911 dispatchers across nine different cities to better understand why people were feeling burnt out and what we can do about it. And that's really where this paper starts.

How were the studies designed and what were your results?

Linos: We did this project in collaboration with the Behavioral Insights Team as part of the What Works Cities Initiative. What we did was actually quite simple. I realized that a lot of the ways that we try to motivate public servants revolves around telling them how important they are to residents. What I have found is that if you've joined government because you want to help people—say you became a social worker because you want to help children or you join law enforcement because you want to help protect people—the actual day-to-day tasks that you're assigned to do don’t always mesh with that vision.

So I wanted to test a different way of thinking about impact that was not based on having an impact on residents. I wanted to focus on how people can have an impact on each other and how they can have an impact on their peers. What we set up was a system that was really low-tech, where we asked 911 dispatchers to share their experiences and their advice to other new dispatchers. Every week they got an email from their supervisor with a specific prompt that was behaviorally informed. It would be something like, "What would you tell a newbie about what it's like to be a 911 dispatcher?" Another week, it could be, "What are the characteristics of a good mentor and who has been a good mentor to you?" 

“All of these nudges, these weekly emails, had the same underlying purpose, which was to prime 911 dispatchers to reflect on how they are connected to each other, how they can support each other, and how valuable they are to each other.

But all of these nudges, these weekly emails, had the same underlying purpose, which was to prime 911 dispatchers to reflect on how they are connected to each other, how they can support each other, and how valuable they are to each other. You don't need to get your status or your value from the police officer or from society. You can actually have an internal group, a group of 911 dispatchers, that has a strong professional identity and a sense of connectedness. And because we were able to do this in nine cities, this was really about building a professional identity outside of the team. Dispatchers were speaking to and hearing from other 911 dispatchers across the country, and I think that was part of why this was effective. For six weeks, they got these e-mails. Some people read the emails. Some people wrote about their experiences. Not everyone did. And that's, I think, an important part of how you set up these types of programs. And then we measured their levels of burnout before the program, right after the program ended, and four months later.

These were set up as randomized controlled trials, so we also had a control group, or comparison group, of 911 dispatchers during the same period in the same city that didn't receive the e-mails. Because we set it up as a randomized control trial, we know that any difference that we see either in burnout scores or other organizational outcomes for the people who received those emails can really be attributed causally to the program and not to other factors that were happening at the same time.

To our surprise, we found that not only did burnout go down but also resignations went down significantly. We saw resignations drop by more than half in the post-intervention period. We saw burnout scores go down by about eight points on the validated CBI (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory) scale. What that translates to is approximately the difference between being an administrative assistant versus being a hospital social worker in terms of the change in burnout. Now, I should say this is probably one of the biggest randomized control trials trying to reduce burnout, but it's still pretty small. The study included a little over 500 people. I think of this as a really interesting and promising pilot that we now can expand and try to replicate to make sure that the mechanism that we think is causing these effects is actually causing it.

“We found that not only did burnout go down but also resignations went down significantly. We saw resignations drop by more than half in the post-intervention period.

Can you talk about the mechanism in this kind of intervention?

Linos: Both in experiments that we've done afterwards and in some correlational survey work that we've done, we're really trying to tease out why this works. What is it about sharing your experience or feeling like you're connected with other people that causes burnout to go down? And it seems like we've learned a couple of things. For one, I consistently find that people who feel like they don't belong in public service or who feel like they're not connected to people at work show higher levels of anxiety, burnout, and fatigue. There's this really strong correlation that we find where there's something about feeling like you're part of a group of public servants that matters.

And we know this from other research as well. From private sector research, we know that one of the strongest predictors of whether or not you stay at a job is whether or not you have a best friend at work. So it's not new to think about social support as a really important part of people's work experience. What I think is newer is really thinking about belonging to a kind of an undervalued group in public service and seeing that as an important part of what makes people get up and go to work in these difficult environments. And we've seen it with correctional officers. We've seen it with health workers. We've seen it with obviously 911 dispatchers. We've also seen it across city employees.

It's a really important question because if we can figure out how to make people feel like they belong, we might have these subsequent effects on all these organizational outcomes that we care about, ranging from making sure people don't quit too early all the way to how they interact with residents. So what we think is happening is that feeling like you have someone to talk to and feeling like you're going to be understood by a group of people who understand what you're going through increases your sense of personal accomplishment and your sense that you can handle the difficulties that come your way at work. I also want to be clear about this. Obviously, your work environment in the more traditional sense are going to affect whether or not you're exhausted at work. Your work hours, your pay, whether your manager supports you—all of these things are clearly really important. But this additional force of feeling connected to people at work or feeling connected to public service seems to have an additional effect on burnout and anxiety, so that's really what we're focusing on in subsequent studies.

“If we can figure out how to make people feel like they belong, we might have subsequent effects on all these organizational outcomes that we care about, ranging from making sure people don’t quit too early all the way to how they interact with residents.

This research looks specifically at 911 dispatchers, but how does this work apply to other types of frontline workers?

Linos: We're still learning where this is applicable and where it isn't. It’s important to note that there's some fundamental level of connectedness that you would need for something like this to work. We are encouraging people to reflect on how they are connected to each other. And so, if things are really bad in a specific agency or there really is a toxic work environment, it's possible that a nudge of this kind is not enough or might even backfire. When you ask people to reflect about how they interact with their work colleagues, that can have anxiety-inducing effects if things are really bad. One thing that we need to still tease out in future research is under what conditions would something like this work.

The second thing we need to explore further is what type of frontline workers are most likely to be responsive to this. There, we are seeing frontline workers who feel more undervalued, or who feel like they're not understood by society at large, seem to have stronger effects. We've done some work with correctional officers, we've done work with 911 dispatchers, and we’re now doing some work with health workers. It's possible that this is more broadly applicable. We don't know yet. One thing that I'm going to do in future research is also look at social workers, teachers, and other types of frontline workers where we do see the same retention challenges but that look very different in terms of how they think about their own identities at work.

What are the major contributions of this paper to the wider literature on frontline workers in burnout?

Linos: I should start by saying that, even though burnout is really a popular term these days, there are decades and decades of really rich literature that looks at both the predictors of burnout and the consequences of burnout. I think what's different about this project and my future work in this space is that, rather than describing burnout, we've now moved into this second phase of trying to figure out what works in reducing it. And that's a whole other challenge. Bringing the rigor of causality to that question is where this study starts, but other studies will move this forward as well. Understanding burnout is step one, trying to figure out what works is step two.

The main contribution here is that even something that is low-cost and behaviorally-informed might be applicable. Most of the thinking around burnout focuses on much bigger structural changes, such as changing the number of hours that people work or giving people more leave time. It’s thinking about the four-day work week if you're in the private sector or more autonomy over your job and your job design. A lot of the tools that we've heard of in the past are much more applicable to a private sector environment. You don't have a lot of say in many public sector frontline work environments about the specifics of your job, your job title, or even what shift you work on. What I'm excited about with this paper is thinking about something that works in an environment that has all the restrictions and limitations of a public sector environment. I think that's where the main contribution is, but again, I think we're still at the beginning of understanding how to mitigate burnout.

~THE STUDY SHOWS MEANINGFUL SAVINGS FOR ORGANIZATIONS DUE TO REDUCTIONS IN TURNOVER. SCALING THIS INTERVENTION TO ALL EMPLOYEES COULD SAVE A CITY WITH 100 DISPATCHERS MORE THAN $170,000 PER YEAR.~

What are some of the opportunities you see for more supportive workplace policies in the public sector, particularly given the attention to frontline workers over the last few months?

Linos: I think there are a couple of different areas that we can explore. One, obviously, is this idea of making sure people feel like they belong. We know now from surveys that we've done in a bunch of different cities and state environments that, for example, employees of color are less likely to feel like they belong in public service when things go badly. There are many ways that we can think about belonging and making sure that people feel like they belong and are supported at work that might have effects on burnout. There's also a whole separate category of projects around supervisors and thinking about what supervisors can do differently to make sure that their staff feel heard. For example, with correctional officers, Amy Lerman has shown that experiencing violence and the threat of violence significantly increases anxiety— but what she and others have found is that if you have a boss or supervisor that you feel is going to have your back, that link between experiencing violence and anxiety is mitigated.

One question that we haven't tackled, but which I think is important for future research, is how society at large views frontline workers. It doesn't help when you have an administration that talks about bureaucrats as though they're the enemy or about draining the swamp. There's a whole history of talking about government workers as though they are lazy and corrupt. I'm hoping that with this crisis and with future crises, we're realizing more and more how inaccurate that is and how damaging that can be, not only in terms of how current public sector workers feel and how motivated they are, but also in terms of our likelihood of getting talent into government in the future as well. I think those areas are the ones that we need to explore a little bit more carefully in the future.

“Employees of color are less likely to feel like they belong in public service when things go badly. There are many ways that we can think about belonging and making sure that people feel like they belong and are supported at work that might have effects on burnout.

Your previous research took place prior to the start of the pandemic. What are you currently working on and what are some of the preliminary findings on frontline worker burnout that you are seeing?

Linos: Because we've set up really good partnerships with government partners through The People Lab, we were able to quickly survey a lot of employees in the midst of the pandemic. There are a couple of things that we've learned. One is that people are ready and willing to talk about mental health in a way that I think is really surprising. We're seeing some patterns that we haven't seen in previous research. For example, Asian-American employees seem to be reporting much higher levels of anxiety than in previous surveys that might have to do with the racism surrounding the coronavirus.

Next, we're also seeing a lot of really saddening levels of burnout and anxiety among frontline workers. Some of this has to do with government workers feeling like they need to protect their families and their loved ones. Some of it has to do with feeling like they need to meet the needs of their clients. For example, if you're working in unemployment insurance, a lot of the anxiety has to do with feeling like you can't keep up with the demand for more unemployment insurance claims. And then there's a third category that has do with financial insecurity, which I think is often overlooked for government workers. Being a government worker today is not like being a government worker a couple decades ago. There is not as much job security, pay is not as good, pensions are not as good, and so people are really worried about losing their jobs. And many of them have been furloughed and are going to lose their jobs during this pandemic.

If you put all these things together, you have workers who often can't stay home, so they can't really protect their families from the pandemic. They're worried about getting sick and getting their loved ones sick. They're also worried about increasing and changing demands on their work. For example, we have people who worked as social workers or caseworkers in a job center that are now running homeless shelters, meaning you’re changing your job description overnight, while still being worried about losing your job. So it's no wonder that frontline workers are struggling on the anxiety front. I think it's something that we really need to pay attention to and worry about investing in, if we're going to get out of this covid recovery in any effective way.

How do you think that the pandemic has changed the way society and the broader community outside of these occupations think about frontline workers?

Linos: In previous decades, people have talked about government bureaucrats as a negative drain on society, but I do see a changing narrative. When we had furloughs in recent years, people were highlighting the government workers who were going to soup kitchens and weren't able to pay their bills in national media outlets. For the first time, the national sentiment was that we need to support our government workers. The narrative I was hearing was that, whatever the politicians are doing, we need our permanent public sector workforce to hold down the fort and deliver services. I think a lot of this change in narrative has to do with who we think of as competent to deliver services. I don't know how that's going to change over time, but to me, it's exciting that people are starting to recognize and thank frontline workers for keeping the country running. That's really what a bureaucracy is made for. This is why, in the U.S. and in a lot of other developed countries, we have a permanent civil service that is different from the political administration. It's at moments like these that we might recognize how important a functioning democracy is to our lives.

“Being a government worker today is not like being a government worker a couple decades ago. There is not as much job security, pay is not as good, pensions are not as good, and so people are really worried about losing their jobs.

Given the context of a changing narrative around frontline workers, what are your priorities for future research in this area and behavioral science interventions more broadly?

Linos: I'm really interested in not only better understanding what works in supporting workers, but also in measuring whether or not this has an effect on the services they deliver. It's a theoretically justified hypothesis that says if you have more engaged frontline workers, you're going to be able to deliver better services, but we don't actually have good causal evidence that that's the case. I think it's really important to push the research in that direction, because if burnout affects whether or not frontline workers are able to deliver better or more equitable services or we show that there's less variability in their decision-making, then that really changes the importance in investing in that government workforce. That's what I want to study next.

For example, if you have a less burnt out frontline worker, do we see less bias? Will that frontline worker deliver services that are less variable based on the characteristics of the resident who they're interacting with? Let's imagine a world where you have less burnt out teachers. Is that going to affect the black-white test score gap? When we think about social workers, if they were less burnt out, are they able to make more equitable decisions around child removals? If we can actually look carefully and rigorously at the causal pathways between worker stress and burnout and resident experience, we might tap into a whole new world of research about how to improve government.

Jesse Rothstein: On the SAT and ACT Admissions Requirement

O-Lab’s Jesse Rothstein, along with Michael Kurlaender (UC Davis) and Sarah Reber (UCLA), urged the UC Regents to reconsider the SAT and ACT as a heavily weighted component of admission for students. Decades of research have shown that SAT and ACT test results are strongly influenced by a student’s race, income, and parent education levels. Rothstein argues that the Board should instead use a state assessment for K-12 students known as Smarter Balanced (already in use in California and several other states) because it has less bias against disadvantaged students.

Read the LA Times article here.