Podcasts about rwjf

In this installment of our Defend Nonprofits Defend Democracy Series, you'll get a deep dive into one of the least-discussed but most important democracy issues facing nonprofits and philanthropy today: attacks on ballot initiatives and direct democracy. Elizabeth DiLauro of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation joins Rusty Stahl to discuss how ballot measures have become critical tools for advancing health equity and why efforts to restrict citizen-led initiatives threaten both democracy and the nonprofit sector.Liz shares how RWJF is funding organizations defending ballot access in multiple states, helping other funders understand the legal pathways for engagement, and why funders using their public voice matters as much as their grantmaking right now. The conversation also explores democratic backsliding, gerrymandering, philanthropy's role in this moment, and why protecting democratic participation is foundational to every social justice mission.Download the edited transcript as a .pdfGuest Bio:Elizabeth DiLauro serves as a Senior Policy Officer with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, where she shapes strategy and grantmaking at the state level to advance long-term change in the social policies that impact our nation's health and well-being. Previously, Liz served as the senior director of advocacy at ZERO TO THREE, where she led the organization's advocacy strategy to advance a policy agenda for young children and families. Earlier in her career, Liz worked with the Pew Charitable Trusts where she crafted state campaigns to increase access to children's dental care, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry where she advanced strategies to support children's mental health policy. She has also worked in federal and state advocacy with Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) USA.Liz holds a Master of Public Administration from the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University, with a specialization in public and non-profit policy and management.Links to Resources Mentioned in the EpisodeOrganizations:Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)Ballot Initiative Strategy CenterBallot Initiative Strategy Center FoundationFairness Project Education FundBolder Advocacy (program of Alliance for Justice)Fund the PeopleReports, Publications, Events, and Tools:Rules of the Game Podcast⁠ (Bolder Advocacy, a program of Alliance for Justice)Foundations on the HillAnswering the Call for a Healthy, Inclusive Democracy - Annual Letter (April 2026) by Dr. Rich Besser, President, Robert Wood Johnson FoundationBallot Measure Hub - a web resources aggregating information and analysis about ballot measures that Ballot Initiative Strategy Center is trackingDefending Direct Democracy: Attacks On The Ballot Measure Process And The Rise Of Authoritarianism (report by the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center - March 2026)All By April (a 501c3 campaign hosted by Democracy Fund)

Welcome to Season 6 of the WE GOT US NOW Podcast.Hosted by Ebony Underwood.Our annual WE GOT US NOW Podcast takes a thematic twist this year with the launch of our SPECIAL EDITION: Mental Health Awareness Series: 7 Unspoken RealitiesThis season, Ebony is joined by Dr. Ron-Li Liaw, Children's Hospital Colorado's inaugural Mental Health-In-Chief, Chair of the Pediatric Mental Health Institute, and a nationally recognized child and adolescent psychiatrist whose work advances mental health integration, family engagement, clinician well-being, design innovation, and systems-level transformation in youth mental health.Together, Ebony and Dr. Liaw engage in a weekly conversation exploring important realities that shape the lives of children separated from a parent by incarceration — from the trauma of witnessing a parent's arrest to the impact of separation on the body, nervous system, and developing mind.Over the next seven weeks, Ebony guides a powerful conversation rooted in lived experience, leadership, and a deep commitment to centering children and young adults impacted by parental incarceration, with Dr. Liaw bringing clinical expertise and systems-level insight to help illuminate each reality.This series invites us to listen more deeply, understand more fully, and respond more compassionately to one of America's most invisible populations.Season 6 begins now. Episode One is live.Thank You to our Sponsors: Chicago Beyond, RWJF, Sony Music, NBA Foundation To learn more, go to: WEGOTUSNOW.org#ChildMentalHealth #TraumaInformed #DrRonLiLiaw #ParentalIncarceration #EbonyUnderwood #WeGotUsNowPodcast #MentalHealthAwarenessMonth #CYAIPI #WEGOTUSNOW

Download our Edited Transcript for this episode.Get the extended version of this and all episodes (and mucn more) by joining our Patreon community.In this installment of our ongoing Defend Nonprofits, Defend Democracy Series, you'll get practical, real-world examples of how funders and nonprofit leaders can engage in policy advocacy to defend values such as racial equity and democracy, when those values are under direct political attack.Host Rusty Stahl is joined by Giridhar Mallya, Senior Policy Officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), to unpack how one major national foundation is supporting nonprofits through legal advocacy, narrative change, and bold leadership in a hostile climate. Drawing on his background in public health and government, Dr. Mallya explains why race-conscious strategies improve outcomes for everyone—and why pulling back from equity work creates greater risk for nonprofits than continuing it.According to Inside Philanthropy, RWJF was the first among the large national foundations to speak out in response to the Trump Administration's anti-racial justice efforts. Listeners will learn how RWJF has redefined what “risk” is in today's environment; why focusing on grantee safety is more productive than focusing on foundation fears; and what it looks like for philanthropic institutions to stay public, values-aligned, and effective when silence feels safer.Guest bio:Giridhar Mallya, is an MD, and Masters of Science Health Policy. He is a public health physician whose career spans government, philanthropy, and academia. His work leverages the power of public policy and community health interventions to shape the political, social, and economic determinants of health.He currently serves as Senior Policy Officer for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation where he leads a national initiative to defend racial equity, diversity, and inclusion in health and other sectors.Dr. Mallya was previously Director of Policy and Planning for the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. He is a board-certified family physician and adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania.Organizations, People & Resources Mentioned:Recommended Resources from our Guest:How Equity Strategies Can Make Healthcare Better for EveryoneAdvancing Health Equity: Myths vs. FactsPromoting Policy Tools that Advance Health and Racial EquityPeople:Giridhar Mallya – Senior Policy Officer, Robert Wood Johnson FoundationEdgar Villanueva – Author and philanthropy leader; RWJF board memberRich Besser – President & CEO, Robert Wood Johnson FoundationAvanel Joseph – Vice President for Policy, Robert Wood Johnson FoundationRev Jesse Jackson (Rest in Peace) – Civil rights leader and past presidential candidateOrganizations & Institutions:Robert Wood Johnson FoundationFreedom Together FoundationMarguerite Casey FoundationSimilar Episodes:Defend Nonprofits, Defend Democracy Series playlist (Spotify)

Today, I get to sit down with returning guest, JoAnn Stevelos, MS, MPH. She is a writer, public health advisor, and researcher whose work sits at the intersection of survival, spiritual terror, radical repair, and relational hope. With more than twenty years' experience in nonprofits, government, public health research, bioethics, and education, she uses her training to help create a culture of health through innovative solutions that treat health as a fundamental human right. Her Robert Wood Johnson Foundation–funded work in Aotearoa New Zealand inspired her to adopt a Samoan proverb as a north star: “Solutions for the community come from the community.”JoAnn is currently the Executive Director of the Andrew Levitt Center for Social Emergency Medicine. She has served in key leadership roles including Executive Director of the Coalition for Supportive Care of Kidney Patients at George Washington University; Director of the NYS Center for the Prevention of Childhood Obesity; Director of Evaluation for the Alliance for a Healthier Generation and Michelle Obama's Let's Move! campaign; and Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor for the RWJF-funded Comprehensive Child Sexual Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and Mitigation program in New Zealand. She advises national and international nonprofits that address health disparities and inequities. A founding board member of The Hope Institute, she has served on the boards of Eat REAL and the New York State Public Health Association. She is a graduate of Columbia University and the University at Albany School of Public Health and Albany Medical College.As a writer, JoAnn's work spans memoir, fiction, poetry, and performance. A Pushcart and Best American Essays nominee, her essays have appeared in The Guardian— “This story isn't about the priest who abused me. It's about my mother.” , Chicago Story Press “How Do You Forgive the Unforgivable?”, and The DewDrop“Passersby” . She is the author of the novel Howard Be Thy Name  and the cross-genre collection Dream Alibis,, and writes the Substack The Second Silence. Her essay “Mugwort” received distinction in the 2025 Writer's Digest Personal Essay Awards, and “The Archivist,” created in collaboration with photographer Sarah Blesener, is forthcoming in North American Review. JoAnn is represented by Barbara Jones at Stuart Krichevsky Literary Agency.Today we focus our conversation on The Hope Model that JoAnn began exploring over 5 years ago. We talk about hopelessness and its many forms and how an awareness of the 4 elements of The Hope Model - Survival, Mastery, Attachment and Spirituality - can help to build hope.The Hope Institute offers Hope Assessments as well as The Oxford Compendium of Hope. Stay tuned to their work as they continue to offer resources and support to a world that sometimes feels in dire need of more hope.You can find more about JoAnn and her work below:https://linktr.ee/JoAnnStevelosChildren at the Table~Psychology Today Blog Dream AlibisToday's show was engineered by Ian Seda from Radiokingston.org.Our show music is from Shana Falana!Feel free to email me, say hello: she@iwantwhatshehas.org** Please: SUBSCRIBE to the pod and leave a REVIEW wherever you are listening, it helps other users FIND IThttp://iwantwhatshehas.org/podcastITUNES | SPOTIFYITUNES: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/i-want-what-she-has/id1451648361?mt=2SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/show/77pmJwS2q9vTywz7Uhiyff?si=G2eYCjLjT3KltgdfA6XXCAFollow:INSTAGRAM * https://www.instagram.com/iwantwhatshehaspodcast/FACEBOOK * https://www.facebook.com/iwantwhatshehaspodcast

Public Health Careers podcast episode with Dr. Yanica F. Faustin

In Episode 70 of the Investing in Impact podcast, I speak with Zoila Jennings, Impact Investment Lead at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, on poverty alleviation and systems change through targeted community financing.Subscribe to our Causeartist newsletter here.This content is for informational purposes only, you should not construe any such information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.Sound Bites"The limit does not exist in philanthropy. I think with banks, they're highly regulated, and it does limit what they can do in terms of flexible financing.""We're a systems level investor. So I don't say, oh, I'm focused on housing or small business. On the community development side, I say, where is the capital now going and where are places that we should really pilot, test, bring in other investors to join."About ZoilaZoila Jennings joined the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 2021, bringing her career focus on social justice and poverty alleviation—through targeted community financing—to her role as an impact investments officer. Prior to this, Zoila served as a senior relationship manager with U.S. Bank, the fifth largest commercial bank in the United States, as part of its Community Development Corporation.In this position, she sourced, structured, and underwrote loans and equity investments for Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). She also developed and executed investment initiatives aimed at addressing racial inequities, including a $25 million fund to support women of color microbusiness owners and the first CDFI-issued racial equity bond for targeted investments in underserved communities of color.Before joining U.S. Bank, Zoila spent a decade at JPMorgan Chase in New York, taking on various roles, including vice president for Community Development-New Markets Tax Credits.Here, she utilized tax equity to structure community development transactions. As a credit underwriter, she managed a credit portfolio that encompassed lending, from small working capital lines to large syndicated tax-exempt debt obligations, to nonprofit hospitals, higher education institutions, and social services agencies.In other roles, she founded a consulting firm specializing in credit underwriting, loan structuring, and financial due diligence for loans and investments benefiting low-income communities.Zoila holds an MBA from Kellogg School of Management and a BS in Business Economics with a concentration in Catholic Studies from Fordham University.The Robert Wood Johnson FoundationThe Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) is a force in the realm of philanthropy, employing a multifaceted approach that includes grantmaking, policy change, and impact investing to dismantle barriers to health and wellbeing.At the heart of RWJF's mission is the belief that everyone in the U.S. should have the opportunity to live their healthiest life possible. Achieving this goal requires equitable capital flow to communities historically deprived of investment due to generations of racist policies and structural racism.About RWJF Impact InvestmentsRWJF stands as a national leader in philanthropy, committed to transforming health across the nation within our lifetime. Through impact investments—which encompass deposits, loans, equity investments, and guarantees—RWJF collaborates with both public and private sector investors to channel more capital into underinvested communities.The foundation's vision encompasses flourishing communities where clean, safe drinking water and stable housing are accessible to all, jobs pay a living wage, and everyone has a fair chance to thrive.Since 2010, RWJF has allocated $625 million to impact investments, addressing structural barriers that perpetuate health inequities.These barriers include historical and ongoing disinvestment in housing, jobs, water infrastructure, and other critical community conditions. RWJF's investments target improving health and economic opportunities for communities, small business owners, and households that have historically faced a lack of investment, such as rural communities, communities of color, and low-income communities.RWJF aims to attract or "leverage" $1 billion from other investors—including banks, commercial lenders, insurance companies, and private investors—by 2025 to further this mission.

We need a renewal of our thinking about what we call poverty. If we want to understand disadvantage better and therefore be better suited to create real solutions, we need to put the center on places, instead of on people. Joining us to help reframe our thinking, is Dr. Kathryn J. Edin, professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. She specializes in the study of people living on welfare. Her reporting has been cited as essential material for understanding the lived experience of poverty in America. Recently Dr. Edin and her team were contacted by RWJF to research poverty from the lens of place. The result of that work is the book we are talking about, The Injustice of Place.

The modern world, and the products we use everyday, are making us sick. But what if we could shift this trend and start to build health into everyday life? That's exactly what Steve Downs and Thomas Goetz, co-founders of Building H, are working on. Steve, the former CTO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, joins us to discuss how Building H is helping companies and designers re-engineer products and “product environments” so they improve rather than harm health. We discuss:Shocking trends in American health: 48% of Americans are lonely, 35% dont get six hours a night of sleep and 60% of adult calories come from ultra-processed food.The mistake of thinking of our daily choices as “individual” decisions, when these decisions are profoundly shaped by our environments and the products we use.The Building H Index, which evaluates everyday products against five metrics of health: eating, physical activity, sleep, social connection, and spending time outdoors.Culdesac - A real-estate developer that is building “cities for people without cars”.Steve asks how we could broaden consumer product regulation to focus on broad health impacts, not just safety: "McDonald's is not responsible for all the food related chronic illnesses in America. But you might argue that they are, I don't know, 1.7%, responsible or 3.8% responsible … I think we ultimately need to get to a place where if your product is leading to unhealthy behaviors, which is leading to illness and disease and cost, there may need to be some accountability for that." Relevant LinksBuilding H websiteBuilding H IndexAJHP paper on the product environmentDaniel Lieberman's book on the history of the human body (no affiliate fee taken)Culdesac websiteHBS Impact-weighted accountsInternational Foundation for Valuing ImpactANNOUNCEMENT: Building H is seeking volunteers with a background in public health, healthcare or health policy to help build the Building H Index by rating products and services on their health impacts. If you're interested in participating in a short scoring exercise, please go to this site for details and sign up https://www.buildingh.org/index/volunteer-signup About Our GuestSteve Downs works at Building H as a co-founder. Prior to his role at Building H, Steve was the chief technology and strategy officer at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) where he led a transformation of the Foundation's practice of program strategy, putting in place an approach that is highly flexible and adaptive. Over his career at RWJF, Steve held a variety of management roles — including chief...

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, inconsistent data collection and reporting made it difficult for U.S. public health agencies to respond to the disease's inequitable impacts. Demographic and socioeconomic factors, such as age, race, ethnicity, gender, income, and disability status, were particularly challenging to capture. The same data issues would later impede agencies' ability to prioritize vaccinations for the people most impacted by the pandemic. Even though COVID-19 is no longer a global public health emergency, the underlying data problems remain. “What's at stake is saving lives,” says Alonzo Plough, chief science officer and vice president of research, evaluation, and learning at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), who joins us for this episode of Mathematica's On the Evidence podcast. Plough explains, “bad data, lack of timely data, [and] lack of connected data” result in “missing opportunities for early intervention that can save lives.” In this two-part episode, Plough joins George Hobor, Javier Robles, and Anita Chandra, as they discuss the deficits of the U.S. public health data infrastructure, how these deficits affect health equity, and how public health agencies can improve their responses to public health crises by transforming their data systems. - Hobor is a senior program officer at RWJF. - Robles is director of the Center for Disability Sports, Health, and Wellness at Rutgers University and was a member of RWJF's National Commission to Transform Public Health Data Systems. - Chandra is vice president and director of RAND Social and Economic Well-Being at the RAND Corporation. In part 1, Mathematica's Deric Joyner speaks with Plough about the motivation behind the Transforming Public Health Data Systems initiative. In part 2, Mathematica's Dave Roberts moderates a conversation between Hobor, Robles, and Chandra, about insights from the initiative and what changes need to happen next to improve the nation's public health data infrastructure. Part 2 is available here: https://on.soundcloud.com/ZoipS Transcripts for parts 1 and 2 are available here: https://mathematica.org/blogs/improving-health-equity-by-transforming-public-health-data-systems

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, inconsistent data collection and reporting made it difficult for U.S. public health agencies to respond to the disease's inequitable impacts. Demographic and socioeconomic factors, such as age, race, ethnicity, gender, income, and disability status, were particularly challenging to capture. The same data issues would later impede agencies' ability to prioritize vaccinations for the people most impacted by the pandemic. Even though COVID-19 is no longer a global public health emergency, the underlying data problems remain. “What's at stake is saving lives,” says Alonzo Plough, chief science officer and vice president of research, evaluation, and learning at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), who joins us for this episode of Mathematica's On the Evidence podcast. Plough explains, “bad data, lack of timely data, [and] lack of connected data” result in “missing opportunities for early intervention that can save lives.” In this two-part episode, Plough joins George Hobor, Javier Robles, and Anita Chandra, as they discuss the deficits of the U.S. public health data infrastructure, how these deficits affect health equity, and how public health agencies can improve their responses to public health crises by transforming their data systems. - Hobor is a senior program officer at RWJF. - Robles is director of the Center for Disability Sports, Health, and Wellness at Rutgers University and was a member of RWJF's National Commission to Transform Public Health Data Systems. - Chandra is vice president and director of RAND Social and Economic Well-Being at the RAND Corporation. In part 1, Mathematica's Deric Joyner speaks with Plough about the motivation behind the Transforming Public Health Data Systems initiative. In part 2, Mathematica's Dave Roberts moderates a conversation between Hobor, Robles, and Chandra, about insights from the initiative and what changes need to happen next to improve the nation's public health data infrastructure. Part 1 is available here: https://on.soundcloud.com/iQcZ4 Transcripts for parts 1 and 2 are available here: https://mathematica.org/blogs/improving-health-equity-by-transforming-public-health-data-systems

Timeline4:30 – Training in Zone 2 for Longevity – not so fast – you know…need data13:53 – Why do people crap on aerobic exercise all the time? It's such a silly notion19:11 – The Exercise metabolome28:43-  There is no such thing as a non-responder; some need to train harder 33:13 – Nutrient timing? Dr Arent edifies us all! Timing can play a role…find out why42:32 – Time-restricted feeding vs chronic caloric restriction47:37 – Tactical Athletes – Dr Arent explains the commonalities – sustained vigilance, power/skill, cognitive component58:50 – Top supplements that are useful and top supplements that are close to horse shitDr. Shawn M. Arent is Professor and Chair of the top-ranked Department of Exercise Science at the University of South Carolina in the Arnold School of Public Health. He is also the Director of the USC Sport Science Lab. His research focuses on the relationship between exercise, nutrition, and stress and the implications for health, performance, and recovery. Dr. Arent is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist with Distinction with the National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA), and a Fellow in the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN), and the National Academy of Kinesiology (NAK). He is also the immediate past-president of the ISSN. He was recognized as the 2017 Outstanding Sport Scientist of the Year by the NSCA, was awarded a Lifetime Service Recognition by the US Army 3-314th Field Artillery Thunder Battalion (the first such award given to a civilian), and he received the 2016 Directors Award for Scientific Excellence. He has received grant funding from the DoD, NIH, RWJF, and various industry sources. Additionally, he has worked with USSOCOM as well as teams and athletes in the NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL, US Ski and Snowboard, the US Soccer Federation, and a number of teams at the youth, high school, and collegiate levels. A former Division I college athlete and national champion, he refuses to believe he's washed up even though his body likes to remind him otherwise.About the ShowWe cover all things related to sports science, nutrition, and performance. The Sports Science Dudes represent the opinions of the hosts and guests and are not the official opinions of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN), the Society for Sports Neuroscience, or Nova Southeastern University. The advice provided on this show should not be construed as medical advice and is purely an educational forum.Hosted by Jose Antonio PhDhttps://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/Board-of-Directors.html Dr. Antonio is the co-founder and CEO of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, www.issn.net as well as the co-founder of the Society for Sports Neuroscience.Dr. Antonio has over 100 peer-reviewed publications, 16 books, and is Professor at Nova Southeastern University, Davie Florida in the Department of Health and Human Performance.Twitter: @JoseAntonioPhDCo-host Anthony Ricci EdDDr Ricci is an expert on Fight Sports and is currently an Assistant Professor at Nova Southeastern University in Davie Florida in the Department of Health and Human Performance.Anthony Ricci | College of Health Care Sciences | NSU (nova.edu)Twitter: @sportsci_psyDoc

Many investors and founders shy away from building Medicaid-focused companies. Andy Slavitt – policymaker, investor and ‘In the Bubble' host – joins us to discuss why this is a huge mistake. Medicaid now covers 85 million Americans and is where the opportunities to build meaningful and high impact companies are the greatest. We talk about Andy's work at Town Hall Ventures and his takeaways from leading CMS in the Obama administration and COVID strategy in the early days of the Biden administration.We dive into: Why Medicaid-focused founders should think of states as 50 potential customers, not as governmentsA few of his portfolio companies: Eleanor Health, Cityblock Health, Plume and Spark PediatricsHow states can get better results from Medicaid managed careThe wide range of impacts from Medicaid expansion: lower medical debt and bankruptcy, increase in home ownership, and improvements in maternal, child health, cancer and cardiac outcomesAndy talks about the deep impact on people's lives from having Medicaid coverage:“In every single study, all of those outcomes – every single one of them that are quality of life and health related – are better under Medicaid expansion. And it makes sense. If you put a little bit more money in people's pockets, put a little more security underneath them, they're going to live their lives, they are going to take that risk and take a better job, they are going to not worry as much … the kids are going to be healthier and more stable.”Relevant LinksTown Hall Ventures websiteHealth Affairs post showing far higher investments in Medicare- than Medicaid-focused companies Medicaid facts and figuresASPE study estimating that 15 million people will lose Medicaid coverage with the end of continuous enrollment RWJF study showing that almost two thirds of Medicaid enrollees don't know about upcoming redeterminationsAbout Our GuestAndy Slavitt has led many of the nation's most important health care initiatives, serving as President Biden's White House Senior Advisor for the COVID response, President Obama's head of Medicare and Medicaid and overseeing the turnaround, implementation and defense of the Affordable Care Act. Slavitt is the “outsider's insider,” serving in leading private and non-profit roles in addition to his government services. He is founder and Board Chair Emeritus of United States of Care, a national non-profit health advocacy organization as well as a founding partner of Town Hall Ventures, a healthcare firm that invests in underrepresented communities. He co-chaired a national initiative on the future of health care at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He chronicles what goes on inside the government and across the nation at town halls, in USA Today, on his award-winning podcast In the Bubble, and on twitter. He is the author of Preventable, a best-selling account of the U.S.'s coronavirus response, released in 2021. A...

The January issue of Parks & Recreation magazine is out now, and on today's bonus episode, I'm thrilled to welcome Maureen Neumann, NRPA's Senior Health Program Manager, to discuss her feature article, “Celebrating Seven Years of Advancing Health Equity.” In her article, Maureen highlights winners of the RWJF-NRPA Award for Health Equity from the last seven years. Since 2016, this award has been presented annually, and recognizes park and recreation professionals who have worked to reduce health disparities and advance systems-level change in their communities to achieve health equity. I'm excited to chat with Maureen today to learn more about some of the winners, and specifically how partnerships played a key part in each of the winners' success.

Avenel JosephVice President, Policy for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation's largest health philanthropy,  discussed a recent op-ed she co-authored, that emphasizes the need for immediate congressional action during the post-election session to expand care for mothers and babies, including an expansion of Medicaid and passage of the  Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act. We discussed the fact that the United States is one of the most dangerous high-income countries in the world in which to give birth, with more than 1,200 dying from complications associated with pregnancy or childbirth in 2021.  She notes that these deaths are across all ethnicities and income levels, but they are increasing and this crisis disproportionately affects people of color, which accounted for nearly 60% of those deaths, along with undocumented and incarcerated women, people experiencing intimate partner violence, and LGBTQ+ individuals.  Dr Joseph tells us an inequitable health system, inherent and structural racism and discrimination in healthcare settings, and the lack of investment in maternal and child care are all root causes of this crisis that dates back generations and has worsened during the pandemic.  The numbers have been rising since the ‘90s and she points out that, added to COVID,  the recent Dobbs decision which allowed states to restrict therapeutic abortion will drive the numbers even higher.   She explained the policies advocated by the foundation that can protect maternal and child health long after pregnancy, including jobs that provide a living wage; health insurance and paid family and medical leave; access to quality and affordable child care; and safe housing and nutritious food. For more information about the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and its data on maternal health go to RWJF.org.

Undocumented people face increased barriers to accessing health coverage and care, including treatment for kidney disease. In this episode, our guest experts discuss what treatment options are currently available for undocumented people and what kind of advocacy efforts are being made to improve their access to health care.    On this episode, we spoke with: Lilia Cervantes, MD Dr. Cervantes received her undergraduate degree at CU Boulder and completed both her medical degree and internal medicine residency at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.  Her background as a first generation Latina inspired her deep commitment to becoming a physician as well as her community service, advocacy, and research focused on promoting social justice in medical education and care.  Dr. Cervantes has worked for over 12 years as an internal medicine hospitalist at Denver Health, the safety-net hospital, and has dedicated her career to creating a healthcare workforce that is diverse as well as conducting research to improve person-centered and clinical outcomes among Latinx patients on dialysis.  The catalyst for her interest in improving outcomes for Latinx patients with chronic kidney disease was a former undocumented Latina patient with kidney failure who struggled with emergency dialysis (dialysis in the emergency department when critically ill) and ultimately died. Funded by the RWJF and the Doris Duke Foundation, Dr. Cervantes discovered the worse outcomes of undocumented immigrants who rely only on emergency dialysis. In 2019, as a result of Dr. Cervantes' research and stakeholder engagement, Colorado Medicaid opted to include the diagnosis of kidney failure as a qualifying condition under Emergency Medicaid thereby expanding access to standard dialysis.  In addition to her work with the undocumented kidney failure community, Dr. Cervantes is developing culturally tailored interventions that will address the social challenges faced by racial/ethnic minorities with chronic kidney disease.   Luz Baqueiro Luz was diagnosed with end stage renal disease in 2018 and has recently received a kidney transplant. Luz started dialysis in the ER for almost a year this being the she did not qualify for any government assistance like Medicaid or the marketplace because she is not a born US citizen. She joined the NKF Advocacy Team after experiencing firsthand what is like not to be able to receive the care you need simple because you are not a citizen she felt she need it to raise awareness on this issues, to share her story and the story of many others who are not getting the proper care they so desperately need.   Additional resources: Open Letter to State Medicaid Directors Become an Advocate Do you have comments, questions, or suggestions? Email us at NKFpodcast@kidney.org. Also, make sure to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts.

Las personas indocumentadas enfrentan bastantes barreras para acceder cobertura y atención médica, incluyendo el tratamiento para la enfermedad renal. En este episodio, nuestras expertas invitadas discuten qué opciones de tratamiento están disponibles actualmente para las personas indocumentadas y qué tipo de esfuerzos se están haciendo para mejorar el acceso a la atención médica. En este episodio, conversamos con: Lilia Cervantes, MD La Dra. Cervantes obtuvo su título universitario en la Universidad de Colorado en Boulder. Al finalizar, ingresó a la Escuela de Medicina de la Universidad de Colorado para completar su grado doctoral y posteriormente realiza su residencia en medicina interna. Ser latina de primera generación fue la inspiración de su gran compromiso de convertirse en médico, al igual que su servicio a la comunidad, su activismo e investigación, centrada en la promoción de la justicia social en la educación y atención médica. La Dra. Cervantes ha ejercido por más de 12 años como médico internista en Denver Health, hospital de red segura, y ha dedicado su carrera en crear un equipo diverso de profesionales de la salud. De igual manera, ha dirigido investigaciones para mejorar el desempeño clínico y fomentar una atención centrada en la persona entre los pacientes latinxs en diálisis. El motivo de su interés por mejorar los resultados de los pacientes latinxs con enfermedad renal crónica fue a raíz de una paciente latina indocumentada con insuficiencia renal, quien luchó contra la diálisis de urgencia (diálisis en la sala de emergencias cuando se encuentra en estado crítico) hasta que falleció. Financiado por la RWJF y la Fundación Doris Duke, la Dra. Cervantes descubrió los peores desenlaces de los inmigrantes indocumentados que dependen únicamente de la diálisis en urgencias.  Como resultado de su investigación y la participación de las partes interesadas, en el 2019, Colorado Medicaid optó por incluir el diagnóstico de insuficiencia renal como una de las condiciones que cualifican para Medicaid de Emergencia, ampliando así el acceso a la diálisis estándar. Además de su trabajo con la comunidad de personas indocumentadas con insuficiencia renal, la Dra. Cervantes está desarrollando intervenciones culturalmente adaptadas que abordarán los retos sociales a los que se enfrentan las minorías raciales y étnicas con enfermedad renal crónica. Luz Baqueiro Luz fue diagnosticada con una enfermedad renal en etapa terminal para el año 2018 y recientemente ha recibido un trasplante de riñón. Al no ser ciudadana americana de nacimiento, Luz, no contaba con los requisitos necesarios para recibir asistencia del gobierno, como el Medicaid; por lo que tuvo que comenzar diálisis en salas de emergencias por casi un año. Luego de conocer personalmente lo que significa no poder recibir los cuidados necesarios por el simple hecho de no ser ciudadano, decide unirse al grupo de activistas de la NKF y así poder crear conciencia sobre estos temas, compartir su historia y la de muchas otras personas que no reciben los cuidados adecuados que tan desesperadamente necesitan. Recursos adicionales: Open Letter to State Medicaid Directors Sé parte del Grupo de Activistas/Defensores ¿Tienes comentarios, preguntas o sugerencias? Envíenos un correo electrónico a NKFpodcast@kidney.org. Además, no olvide reseñarnos dondequiera que escuche podcasts.

The Ojibwe name for wild rice is Manoomin, which translates to “the good berry.” The scientific name is Zizania palustris. It's the only grain indigenous to North America, and while it might be called rice, it's actually not closely related to brown or white rice at all. It has long played an important role in Ojibwe cultures, but last year, Manoomin took on a new role: plaintiff in a court case. Last August, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources was sued by wild rice. The case of Manoomin v Minnesota Department of Natural Resources alleges that the Minnesota DNR infringed on the wild rice's right to live and thrive. But can wild rice sue a state agency? The short answer is: yes. This is the story about what might happen if rice wins.The Rights of Rice and Future of NatureSupport for this episode was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation. RWJF is working to build a culture of health that ensures everyone in the United States has a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. For more information, visit www.rwjf.org. If you have a hunch about how changes to the way we live, learn, work and play today are shaping our future, share it here: www.shareyourhunch.org

The Ojibwe name for wild rice is Manoomin, which translates to “the good berry.” The scientific name is Zizania palustris. It's the only grain indigenous to North America, and while it might be called rice, it's actually not closely related to brown or white rice at all. It has long played an important role in Ojibwe cultures, but last year, Manoomin took on a new role: plaintiff in a court case. Last August, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources was sued by wild rice. The case of Manoomin v Minnesota Department of Natural Resources alleges that the Minnesota DNR infringed on the wild rice's right to live and thrive. But can wild rice sue a state agency? The short answer is: yes. This is the story about what might happen if rice wins.The Rights of Rice and Future of NatureSupport for this episode was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation. RWJF is working to build a culture of health that ensures everyone in the United States has a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. For more information, visit www.rwjf.org. If you have a hunch about how changes to the way we live, learn, work and play today are shaping our future, share it here: www.shareyourhunch.org

In this sixth and final installment of our excellent series, Living in Rural America —2022 and Beyond, produced in collaboration with and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Michelle discusses the future of rural with three outstanding guests: Dee Davis, Founder and President of the Center for Rural Strategies; David Lipsetz, President and CEO of the Housing Assistance Council (HAC); and Valerie Lefler. Founder and Executive Director of Feonix — Mobility Rising. Davis discusses the best options for small towns facing economic challenges, the political divide between urban and rural communities and its effect on democratic institutions, and the impact of divergent media in the rural space. Lipsetz talks about the impact of housing issues on health, wealth, and education in rural communities, and how his organization is helping rural communities take advantage of opportunities in this space. Lefler discusses transportation barriers faced by rural communities, the connection between rural healthcare and mobility challenges, and how Feonix is working to provide solutions in these areas. This episode and the entire six-part series is sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation., the nation's largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. For more information on RWJF, visit rwjf.org or on Twitter @rwjf.

Synopsis: In Part V of our six-part series, Living in Rural America, produced in collaboration with and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Michelle discusses Rural Economic & Cultural Success Stories: Lesson Learned from Thriving Communities, with Dr. Katherine Ortega Courtney and Dominic Capello, the two authors of the landmark book, 100% Community, Ensuring 10 Vital Services for Surviving and Thriving and Matt Probst, medical director of El Centro Family Health and a driving force behind the 100% San Miguel (New Mexico) County Initiative. Probst discusses how he is helping to lead an effort to combat the current wildfires in New Mexico, the worst in state history. He also details the five activities that all communities should maintain to survive and the five necessary activities to thrive in any community. The panel also talks about the history of 100 Percent Community, which started before the pandemic; how their organization addresses a variety of rural issues; what makes their organization unique; and its processes for enabling success in communities. This episode and the entire six-part series is sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation's largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. For more information on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, visit rjwf.org

Being unemployed in the United States is bad for you. It's bad for your mental, physical and emotional health. Bad for your family stability. Bad for your ability to survive. It's just bad news, period.The research shows that 83 percent of laid-off workers develop a serious stress-related condition. And as we look at the future of work, that's a problem for the American economy. Because one of the big questions about the American workplace is:What if, in the a future, we actually have less work … and more unemployment?GuestsKiarica Shields, hospice nurse in Georgia who lost her job early in the pandemic, and eventually lost her home and her car. Her unemployment insurance stopped inexplicably, and after she her appeal, she was told she was ineligible for coverage because she worked a single day on another job. Mark Attico  - furloughed at the start of the pandemic in his job planning business travel. Was on unemployment for months, and with the pandemic supplement his income was actually enough to pay his bills, and gave him time to reconnect with his teenage son - and hold out for a better job that fit his skills and paid well.Dorian Warren, co-president of Community Change.Sarah Damaske, author of The Tolls of Uncertainty: How Privilege and the Guilt Gap Shape Unemployment in America.ResourcesReforming Unemployment Insurance: Stabilizing a system in crisis and laying the foundation for equity, A joint project of Center for American Progress, Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, Groundwork Collaborative, National Employment Law Project, National Women's Law Center, and Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June, 2021A Playbook for Improving Unemployment Insurance Delivery, New America New Practice Lab, 2021A Plan to Reform the Unemployment Insurance System in the United States, Arindrajit Dube, The Hamilton Project, April 2021 How Does Employment, or Unemployment, Affect Health, RWJF, 2013 Single transitions and persistence of unemployment are associated with poor health outcomes, Herber et al, 2019The Toll of job loss, Stephanie Pappas, American Psychological Association, 2020 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Being unemployed in the United States is bad for you.  It's bad for your mental, physical and emotional health. Bad for your family stability. Bad for your ability to survive.  It's just bad news, period. The research shows that 83 percent of laid-off workers develop a serious stress-related condition. And as we look at the future of work, that's a problem for the American economy. Because one of the big questions about the American workplace is:What if, in the a future, we actually have less work … and more unemployment? Guests Kiarica Shields, hospice nurse in Georgia who lost her job early in the pandemic, and eventually lost her home and her car. Her unemployment insurance stopped inexplicably, and after she her appeal, she was told she was ineligible for coverage because she worked a single day on another job.  Mark Attico  - furloughed at the start of the pandemic in his job planning business travel. Was on unemployment for months, and with the pandemic supplement his income was actually enough to pay his bills, and gave him time to reconnect with his teenage son - and hold out for a better job that fit his skills and paid well. Dorian Warren, co-president of Community Change. Sarah Damaske, author of The Tolls of Uncertainty: How Privilege and the Guilt Gap Shape Unemployment in America. Resources Reforming Unemployment Insurance: Stabilizing a system in crisis and laying the foundation for equity, A joint project of Center for American Progress, Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, Groundwork Collaborative, National Employment Law Project, National Women's Law Center, and Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June, 2021 A Playbook for Improving Unemployment Insurance Delivery, New America New Practice Lab, 2021 A Plan to Reform the Unemployment Insurance System in the United States, Arindrajit Dube, The Hamilton Project, April 2021  How Does Employment, or Unemployment, Affect Health, RWJF, 2013  Single transitions and persistence of unemployment are associated with poor health outcomes, Herber et al, 2019 The Toll of job loss, Stephanie Pappas, American Psychological Association, 2020

Being unemployed in the United States is bad for you.  It's bad for your mental, physical and emotional health. Bad for your family stability. Bad for your ability to survive.  It's just bad news, period. The research shows that 83 percent of laid-off workers develop a serious stress-related condition. And as we look at the future of work, that's a problem for the American economy. Because one of the big questions about the American workplace is:What if, in the a future, we actually have less work … and more unemployment? Guests Kiarica Shields, hospice nurse in Georgia who lost her job early in the pandemic, and eventually lost her home and her car. Her unemployment insurance stopped inexplicably, and after she her appeal, she was told she was ineligible for coverage because she worked a single day on another job.  Mark Attico  - furloughed at the start of the pandemic in his job planning business travel. Was on unemployment for months, and with the pandemic supplement his income was actually enough to pay his bills, and gave him time to reconnect with his teenage son - and hold out for a better job that fit his skills and paid well. Dorian Warren, co-president of Community Change. Sarah Damaske, author of The Tolls of Uncertainty: How Privilege and the Guilt Gap Shape Unemployment in America. Resources Reforming Unemployment Insurance: Stabilizing a system in crisis and laying the foundation for equity, A joint project of Center for American Progress, Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, Groundwork Collaborative, National Employment Law Project, National Women's Law Center, and Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June, 2021 A Playbook for Improving Unemployment Insurance Delivery, New America New Practice Lab, 2021 A Plan to Reform the Unemployment Insurance System in the United States, Arindrajit Dube, The Hamilton Project, April 2021  How Does Employment, or Unemployment, Affect Health, RWJF, 2013  Single transitions and persistence of unemployment are associated with poor health outcomes, Herber et al, 2019 The Toll of job loss, Stephanie Pappas, American Psychological Association, 2020 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

0:00 - So that's why everyone's moving to the suburbs…   8:46 - Lori Lightfoot's call to arms    29:16 - Dan & Amy react to a rare Richard Irvin sighting   48:33 - Senior Program Officer at RWJF, Matt Pierce, debates the new Menthol ban ruling from the FDA. For more on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation visit rwjf.org   01:00:37 - Bryan Steil, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, discovers an appreciation for Illinois drivers and warns of a looming economic crisis of ballooning debt payments. For more on Bryan's work for WI district 1 visit steil.house.gov   01:15:56 -President at Wirepoints, Ted Dabrowski: Illinois is playing the same ol' game of catch up. Check out Ted's latest at wirepoints.org   01:29:21 - Former Trump Advisor, Steve Cortes, chooses sides in  A Heartland Battle for the GOP's Soul. Check out more of Steve's writing at stevecortes.substack 01:44:05 - LTHS update  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, the fourth in our six-part series, Living in Rural America, produced in collaboration with and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Michelle chats with Mil Duncan, Professor Emerita in Sociology at the University of New Hampshire and Senior Fellow at the Meridian Institute. Her work focuses on opportunity and social change in rural communities. Duncan was the founding director of the Carsey Institute at UNH and is the author of Worlds Apart: Poverty and Politics in Rural America. Duncan discusses her research about equity and opportunity in rural America, the historical roots of deep poverty in rural places, and the role of politics as a potential equity change agent. This episode and the entire six-part series is sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation's largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. For more information on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, visit rjwf.org

Data is the lifeblood of public health, and has been since the beginning of the field. But essential data gathering for the COVID pandemic was hindered by a couple of of underlying weakness in the US public health apparatus. We have a fractured system where the power lies in US states that don't always coordinate effectively. Also there has been inconsistent funding. When there was an immediate crisis, there would be an infusion of cash. But then, when the crisis passed, the resources would evaporate. We take a look at data gathering in regards to public health from the 1600s to today and how it might change in the future.Support for this episode was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation. RWJF is working to build a culture of health that ensures everyone in the United States has a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. For more information, visit www.rwjf.org. If you have a hunch about how changes to the way we live, learn, work and play today are shaping our future, share it here: www.shareyourhunch.org

Data is the lifeblood of public health, and has been since the beginning of the field. But essential data gathering for the COVID pandemic was hindered by a couple of of underlying weakness in the US public health apparatus. We have a fractured system where the power lies in US states that don't always coordinate effectively. Also there has been inconsistent funding. When there was an immediate crisis, there would be an infusion of cash. But then, when the crisis passed, the resources would evaporate. We take a look at data gathering in regards to public health from the 1600s to today and how it might change in the future.Support for this episode was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation. RWJF is working to build a culture of health that ensures everyone in the United States has a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. For more information, visit www.rwjf.org. If you have a hunch about how changes to the way we live, learn, work and play today are shaping our future, share it here: www.shareyourhunch.org

Is the everyday world making us sick? Can we hold companies responsible for the health consequences of their products and services? How do you design health into the operating systems of our civilization? Steve Downs is a co-founder at Building H, a project to build health into everyday life. Steve, his Building H co-founder Thomas Goetz, and other collaborators are growing a community of entrepreneurs, investors, designers, engineers and researchers who believe that we need to re-imagine everyday life—how we eat, sleep, get from place to place, socialize and entertain ourselves—to be healthy by design. In addition to community building, Building H and their collaborators are developing tools to help companies understand the impacts of their products and services on the health and well-being of their users. Steve is a lecturer at the d.school at Stanford University and an adjunct faculty member at the Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP) at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts. Prior to his role at Building H, he was the chief technology and strategy officer at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) where he focused on the practice of program strategy and on the alignment of the Foundation's technology strategy and operations with its organizational directions. Recognizing that RWJF's pursuit of its ambitious Culture of Health vision required an approach to strategy that is highly flexible and adaptive, he led a transformation of the Foundation's approach to program strategy. Born in New Hampshire, Steve earned an SM in technology and policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a BS in physics and applied physics from Yale University. Thomas Goetz is a journalist, author and entrepreneur. He uses data, design, and stories to help people understand and navigate complicated issues in their lives. Thomas is the co-founder of Iodine, an award-winning website that helps people make sense of their health and medicines. In 2016, Iodine was acquired by GoodRx, America's leading source for prescription drug savings, where he presently serves as chief of research. Thomas was previously the executive editor at WIRED, which he led to a dozen National Magazine Awards in as many years, and where he wrote dozens of cover stories on technology, science, and medicine. He began his career as a reporter at the Village Voice and the Wall Street Journal, and has written for the New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, and Bon Appetite. His writing has been repeatedly selected for the Best American Science Writing and Best Technology Writing anthologies. He served as the first Entrepreneur-in-Residence for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, where he founded Flip the Clinic, an RWJ Signature Program working to transform the practitioner-patient encounter. His 2010 TED talk on visualizing medical data has been viewed more than half a million times. He holds an MPH from UC Berkeley and a MA in literature from UVA. Follow Steve on Twitter | LinkedIn Follow Thomas on Twitter | LinkedIn This episode is sponsored by: Fortune Brainstorm Design, to be held May 23-24 in Brooklyn is a curated experience for passionate and successful design and design-minded professionals. Join Fortune and be inspired by diverse examples of design excellence, explore how design thinking and practice can be challenged and advanced, meet and network with high-level peers, and leave with concrete ideas and partnerships to drive transformation within your organization. Listeners of Design Lab with Bon Ku can use code “designlab” for a 20% discount on registration!  For more information or to register go to FortuneBrainstormDesign.com. More episode sources & links Sign-up for Design Lab Podcast's Newsletter Newsletter Archive Follow @DesignLabPod on Twitter Instagram and LinkedIn Follow @BonKu on Twitter and Instagram Check out the Health Design Lab Production by Robert Pugliese Cover Design by Eden Lew Theme song by Emmanuel Houston

In Part III of this series, Life in Rural America — 2022 and Beyond — produced in collaboration with and underwritten by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Michelle chats with Ge Bai, Professor of Accounting at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School and Professor of Health Policy & Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Keith Mueller, Gerhard Hartman Professor in Health Management and Policy, University of Iowa and Director of the Rural Policy Research Institute and its Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis; and Sally Buck, CEO of the National Rural Health Resource Center. Ge discusses the recent financial challenges and most important issues facing rural hospitals today, such as low occupancy rate. Mueller talks about how rural hospitals can retain the brand of the “blue H” while no longer being dependent on the volumes of inpatient care for their identity. He notes that certain hospitals have been able to achieve “turnarounds” through a variety of measures, including developing a mix of services, collaborating with other institutions in the community and, for new CEOs, totally immersing themselves in the community and meeting their population's health needs. Buck points out the attributes and best practices that make certain CAHs more financially viable than others, the burnout and turnover conundrum, and how federal programs can improve the financial and quality performance of hospitals in rural communities. This episode and the entire six-part series is sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation's largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. For more information, visit rwjf.org or @rwjf on Twitter.

While something like dial-up might mostly be a thing of the past, the truth is copper phone lines still connect a lot of people to the internet over DSL. And even many people's coaxial cable connections aren't fast enough to meet the federal government's definition of broadband (25 megabits per second download speed, and 3 megabit upload). Who gets fiber is determined by the market, and the market is determined not by who wants fiber, but really just who can already afford it. So for a lot of the country, the last mile remains a deep and vexing problem. Different cities have tried to solve that problem in different ways.Support for this episode was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is committed to improving health and health equity in the United States. In partnership with others, RWJF is working to develop a Culture of Health rooted in equity that provides every individual with a fair and just opportunity to thrive, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have.The Future of the Final Mile

While something like dial-up might mostly be a thing of the past, the truth is copper phone lines still connect a lot of people to the internet over DSL. And even many people's coaxial cable connections aren't fast enough to meet the federal government's definition of broadband (25 megabits per second download speed, and 3 megabit upload). Who gets fiber is determined by the market, and the market is determined not by who wants fiber, but really just who can already afford it. So for a lot of the country, the last mile remains a deep and vexing problem. Different cities have tried to solve that problem in different ways.Support for this episode was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is committed to improving health and health equity in the United States. In partnership with others, RWJF is working to develop a Culture of Health rooted in equity that provides every individual with a fair and just opportunity to thrive, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have.The Future of the Final Mile

In Part II of this six-part series — Living in Rural America, 2022 and Beyond —   produced in collaboration with and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Michelle chats with three experts on how rural America is dealing with the pandemic and other significant issues. Dr. Don Albrecht, Director of the Western Rural Development Center (WRDC), who has published research on the impact of COVID-19 on rural areas; Patrick Woodie, President of the NC Rural Center; and Karen Jackson, President of Apogee Strategic Partners, LLC, a Virginia firm specializing in developing and implementing technology and innovation strategies and programs. Albrecht discusses: why most rural economies have been stagnant or declining for decades, what thriving rural communities look like, and why per capita COVID-19 deaths in rural America are higher than in urban areas. Woodie details how rural business has fared in North Carolina and the importance of access and funding broadband in rural areas. Jackson describes how there has been influx of rural remote workers during the pandemic (a “silver lining” echoed by the other two guests), as well as how rural areas can position themselves at this time to capitalize on post-COVID opportunities. This episode, and the entire six-part series, is sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation's largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. Find out more about the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation at rwjf.org or on Twitter, @rwjf.          

People have been going back and forth about what makes a healthy and productive office since there have been offices. The 20th century was full of misbegotten fads and productivity innovations that continue to this day, even when the whole notion of what it means to be in an office has shifted during the pandemic. In this first episode of our series "The Future Of..." we look at the past, present, and future of the office through the lens of the office furniture that has been designed to solve all our problems.Support for this episode was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is committed to improving health and health equity in the United States. In partnership with others, RWJF is working to develop a Culture of Health rooted in equity that provides every individual with a fair and just opportunity to thrive, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have.Reaction Offices and the Future of Work

People have been going back and forth about what makes a healthy and productive office since there have been offices. The 20th century was full of misbegotten fads and productivity innovations that continue to this day, even when the whole notion of what it means to be in an office has shifted during the pandemic. In this first episode of our series "The Future Of..." we look at the past, present, and future of the office through the lens of the office furniture that has been designed to solve all our problems.Support for this episode was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is committed to improving health and health equity in the United States. In partnership with others, RWJF is working to develop a Culture of Health rooted in equity that provides every individual with a fair and just opportunity to thrive, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have.Reaction Offices and the Future of Work

In Part I of our six-part series, Living in Rural America — 2022 and Beyond, produced in collaboration with and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Michelle discusses myths and realities of the rural experience today with four experts in this space: John Pender, a senior economist in the Rural Economy Branch of the USDA Economic Research Service; Mark Partridge, Swank Chair of Rural-Urban Policy at Ohio State University; Kai Schafft, professor of  Education and Rural Sociology at Penn State University where he directs the Center on Rural Education and Communities; and Brock Slabach, Chief Operating Officer at the National Rural Health Association. Pender discusses how rural residents and the rural economy are faring during the pandemic compared to metro areas and access to broadband and advanced telecommunication connectivity. Partridge talks about growth patterns, economic policy, federal funding, and technological developments affecting rural areas. Schafft focuses on the rural sociology and the Rural Sociological Society, rural schools and communities, mental health needs, and burnout among superintendent and teachers. Slabach also discusses how the pandemic has dramatically impacted rural health care workforces, population health, and incentives for improving rural health. This episode and the entire six-part series is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. For more information, visit rwj.org  

For this episode of the Poverty Research and Policy Podcast, we hear from Professor Amy Castro about the concept of Basic Income, and what she and her team are learning from data coming in from pilot projects around the country.  Professor Castro is Founding Director of the Center for Guaranteed Income Research and an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. --- Transcript:  Judith Siers-Poisson: Hello, and thanks for joining us for the poverty research and policy podcast from the Institute for research on poverty at the university of Wisconsin-Madison. I'm Judith Siers-Poisson. For this episode we are going to be talking with Professor Amy Castro about the concept of Basic Income, and what she and her team are learning from data coming in from pilot projects around the country.  Professor Castro is Founding Director of the Center for Guaranteed Income Research and an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Castro, Thanks for joining us today. Amy Castro: Thanks for having me. Siers-Poisson: What do we mean when we talk about a guaranteed income? What is it and what is it not? Castro: Yeah, it's a great question because there's a lot of terms that are floating out there in the public imagination that also in the literature. So, there's three basic terms that pertain to this body of work. First is UBI or Universal Basic Income, and that's the one that people are probably the most familiar with given Andrew Yang's presidential run. UBI is exactly what it sounds like. It's universal. It's an unconditional amount of cash that goes to every single person in a city, a state, a town, a county, whatever that jurisdiction may be. We actually have not had a UBI experiment here in the United States because obviously universality know would apply to everybody. We have not had that yet. Second is basic income. Basic income is again an unconditional amount of cash that is given to a group of people, and it's enough to cover your basic needs. The third category, which is primarily what I study, is guaranteed income. It's not enough money to cover your basic needs but is a fixed amount of cash that's recurring, so you can rely on that money coming each month each week, whatever that cadence may be. And I think that's key about all three of these categories. A characteristic that carries across all is the unconditional nature of it, meaning you receive that cash because you're human, you don't receive that cash because you fit a means test criteria or because you are doing something like participating in a workforce force training program or a financial literacy program. You receive that cash because you are because you exist. And that's really the ethos behind guaranteed income or basic income. Siers-Poisson: And it seems like that point is what distinguishes it from, say, what people used to lump under the umbrella of welfare in the past. Castro: Exactly. And I think that that's why, you know, on the one hand, people are so excited about this idea. And then on the other hand, why there is so much backlash, right, is that we truly are talking about giving away money, no strings attached. And traditionally here in the United States, when we talk about the provision of cash or goods to people who are struggling to make ends meet, we layer it with all sorts of restrictions as to how that money can be spent and who can have access to it. And what's attached to those restrictions are social constructions ideas that are not rooted in reality, they're rooted in ideology most of the time around race, class, gender, marital status. And they're used as ways to shame and blame people who access these programs. And it really serves as a social deterrent for people to access them. In contrast, basic income or guaranteed income functions completely differently. If you're enrolled in one of these programs or pilots, you receive it because you're human. And the idea is that people know best what they need and what their households need. And secondly, if we think about need, right? So like financial scarcity or financial need, needs fluctuate from month to month and cash is the only benefit that's flexible. So if needs are flexible, we want to have something that's dynamic to match it. And cash is really the only thing that does that in comparison to something like food stamps or SNAP, which can only be used for restricted items such as food that fits a pre-set list that's set by a bureaucrat. Siers-Poisson: So you just explained that this goes to people because they're people, not because they qualify in some way, but then who was targeted for these guaranteed income programs? Castro: Yeah, it's a great question. So, you know, it's a fancy way of saying it would be what is the recruitment criteria, right? Because we're running experiments scientifically. So we are designing and studying these programs to see what happens when you provide people the money. So one of the big questions that we get any time we're running a new pilot—and right now we're running or at various stages of running twenty-eight pilots across the US at my center—is who gets the money right? And so that's a complicated process that for us happens across three different sets of stakeholders. First, we have our community-based stakeholders, which is what the community wants to set as far as eligibility criteria. Second, you know, elected officials who may or may not be working with us and that are really spearheading the program and helping to kind of get it off the ground. And then third, those of us within the research space trying to determine how do we best leverage this project to answer research questions so that we are informing policy with data. So that recruitment criteria really varies for us from state to state and from location to location. I would say the majority of the projects we're working on right now are focused on people who are struggling to make ends meet. Oftentimes, they have children in the household, and oftentimes there are people who have had some type of a pandemic-related incident with their work: their hours being cut, something to that effect. But that's a general statement of each pilot is slightly different. Siers-Poisson: I want to get into the nuts and bolts of how this works, but first, I want to touch on something that you just said and that's getting feedback from the communities that you are in. And I think that especially the communities that we're talking about are communities that have maybe historically been treated with less respect in the ways that they are given support or help, if they are at all. When you also layer on things like systemic racism and the history of understandable distrust of systems, how do you go in and build those relationships that are necessary to have any hope of being successful? Castro: That's such a great question. You know, first I'll own, before I say how, and sort of jump to say how we resolve that problem, or we try to resolve that problem, because I'm by no means saying that we fix it. The first thing I just want to own is that, you know, as a scientist and as somebody who has social work training, this is the hardest part of my job. You know, it's really easy as a scientist to stay in a position of control. And that's how we're trained, is that you hold your research design so tightly. You are the expert, you know, best it needs to happen. You determine the hypotheses, you determine the design and it is in your hands. And it is very comforting, right? You can lean back into your methods training, lean back into your degree, lean back into your institution or your brand, and label yourself as the expert and that feels very safe. But the more you involve the community in your design, the more you are letting go of really being in control. So when we think about the posture of science and the posture of how we engage with community stakeholders, it's crucial that we sort of hold our integrity as a scientist in one hand while on the other hand, being willing to relinquish control to some degree to involve community voice in the process. And when we look back through social science, we see, you know, decades of places where we've been unwilling to do this and we start measuring things, designing programs and policies, without the community input. And then we wonder why it doesn't work. This happened with TANF, or Welfare to Work as we designed this program, assuming it would work without bothering to think, “Hey, what happens if you expect the mom to work and take three busses to get to the other side of a city?” That literally makes absolutely no sense, right? So I will say that at the outset, it's the most rewarding part of what I do. It's also the most terrifying because it means I'm not in a position of control. As far as how we resolve it, there's no way to do it that's going to make everyone happy. I'll own that from the start. But a couple key steps. First is making certain that we are involving ourselves from the very beginning of a project with community-based stakeholders and organizations who know their community well. So this means doing that legwork of meeting with CBOs, nonprofits, and also the constituents themselves and the people who receive benefits from those programs to understand best how a program ought to be designed. So in some cases, we involve people in giving us feedback on how we design that recruitment criteria, or another way of putting it who gets the money, and getting that feedback. And then crucially, another way that we involve community stakeholders is in release of findings. So in Stockton, for instance, all of that data that's been released on spending that people can see, that is seen by a group of focus groups of community stakeholders that are not elected officials, that are not people in power. They're regular humans who get to see that data first and work with us to think about how we display this data to the public. Siers-Poisson: So let's get down to those nuts and bolts of how these programs work. First of all, how is the amount decided on? You did say that guaranteed income is not supposed to provide for all expenses, but even given that, it seems like the cost of living in different parts of the country or even parts of a state would need to be taken into consideration. So how do you find that that amount that is going to give you some kind of results that mean something? Castro: That's a great question, and it's one of our most vexing open research questions. So first, Stockton was set at $500 a month. The rationale behind that $500 a month is that the question of whether or not you can absorb a $400 unexpected shock or financial emergency is a standard question or threshold within economic mobility research and something that's standard in a lot of our large datasets. So it sort of made sense to start there. A lot of other cities who have built on the Stockton model have kind of just lifted that amount of money because that's what Stockton did. We have very limited control as to deciding the disbursement amount. And of course, those things are also restricted by the amount of funds that are available to a given pilot. However, some of our larger places and bigger cities with higher cost of living like, for instance, the L.A. area, we're talking about $1,000 a month. So it's really an open question for research and for policy as to how should we adjust unconditional cash based on cost of living. It's not something we have a good answer to yet, and I'm hoping that we will within the next three or four years because, yeah, cost of living is different from one state to the next, from one city to the next. And that's absolutely something that needs to be taken into consideration when we're talking about moving from pilot to policy. Siers-Poisson:  So Stockton, which is the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, or SEED, I believe, as you said, that was the first pilot of this specific type of guaranteed income program. How did it come about? Why Stockton? Castro: So it's incredibly interesting. So first, Mayor Michael Tubbs really spearheaded the launch of that project in partnership with Economic Security Project. So Economic Security Project or ESP, which is headed up by Chris Hughes, former cofounder of Facebook, and Natalie Foster, they had been sort of looking for a city that was interested in potentially testing this idea. Now everyone is kind of running to try find a basic income pilot but go back to 2017, 2018, people are like “you are crazy. You're going to give people money? No strings attached? That's absolutely nuts.” And here's Mayor Tubbs, who you know is, I believe the youngest, if not one of the youngest, who's 26 years old, elected as mayor in Stockton. You know, Stockton had nowhere to go but up. They had experienced the worst that capitalism has to offer. They were once the foreclosure capital of the United States, while also absorbing the cost of housing from the bay area. So it made it sort of an ideal spot to test this idea because one, you had a mayor who was interested and willing to try anything right, willing to take the risk. But second, it really is a bellwether location. And when we think about sort of the way that risky lending has really dismantled the middle class and resulted in tremendous losses in wealth, particularly for, you know, Black and Brown households, Stockton was an ideal place to test policy proof of concept because it really kind of fit that Venn diagram of all these, these different forces that are really contributed to the loss of wealth, the United States. Siers-Poisson: So you had, I think it's fair to say, a visionary young mayor who was interested in trying this. So where did the money come from? Castro: The money came from two kind of different categories. So first, you have the disbursement money, so the money that actually goes to the people. That funding came primarily from the Economic Security Project, along with a number of other philanthropists who donated, smaller family foundations, and also some individual donors. And then the science—this is crucial because this is a model that we, we maintain across all the things that we're working on—the funding for the science came from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. And so we really like to keep a strong firewall between those two sides. So there's not coercion. So, RWJF, you know, really to their credit, specifically, the evidence for action arm of RWJ, really took a chance on our project and funded the research side. So the evaluation dollars were coming from sort of that traditional form of funding. Siers-Poisson: And so how many people were enrolled, and do you think of them as people or as households? Castro: Oh, great question. Yeah. So we tend to talk about sort of the findings at a household level simply because that's how people live, right? They live in networks, they live in households, but the money is not going to specific household, it's going to a specific individual in the household. So we had 125 people in the treatment group, which is another way of saying the people who got the $500. And then we also had a control group who were taking all the same surveys, participating in the same interviews as the treatment group, but not getting the cash so we could compare one group to the other. Siers-Poisson: When did it start and how far along are you now? Castro: So the research ran for two years. Our last payment was in February of this year. So we had one full year of pre-pandemic data or disbursements and then one year of payments during the pandemic or after. We've only released the first-year findings. The second-year findings, that is the total findings, will be released to the public in late spring of 2022. Siers-Poisson: What were the key findings from that first year in Stockton? Castro: So we really saw changes in three key areas. First was income volatility. One of our driving research questions is can guaranteed income disrupt income volatility, which is your money going up and down each month, which really locks people out of financial instruments and being able to plan for the future. We saw less income volatility in those who were in the treatment group in comparison to control after one year. We saw that that sort of stabilization in family finances allowed families to plan for the future. So in the treatment group, after one year, we saw that monthly income volatility really dropped. And one of the ways that we look at that is asking this question: “Can you pay for unexpected $400 emergency expense with cash?” At the beginning of the experiment, in the treatment group, only 25% said that they could do that, along with the control. And after one year, those receiving the cash, 52% of them said they could absorb a $400 unexpected shock, while only 28% of those in control said that. Now this finding is really important because on the face of it sort of obvious, right? If you give people more money, they're going to have more money. But what's key to understand about this is two things. First, that liquidity in the household allowed people to both plan while also absorb the unexpected things that happen to all of us: the flat tire, the missed shift at work, the unexpected copay, which then tends to spill over in a household and cause strain elsewhere in the budget. Second, that liquidity was really pooled across fragile family networks, such that stabilizing those resources in one household actually had a spillover effect into other families where they normally would borrow money and food for those households, which is really key and interesting. And then the second area that we saw big shifts was in our second research question, which was ‘How do changes in income volatility impact health and well-being?” And what we found was that people receiving the cash were less anxious and depressed, both over time and compared to the control group. They reported improved emotional health and well-being, energy over fatigue, again, both over time compared to the control group. Now key, Judith, it's still staggering for me to even think that this is one of research findings is that at the beginning of the experiment, almost everyone in treatment control met the clinical criteria for either anxiety or depression, as measured by some pretty standard measures that we all use at the doctor's office. Most of us have taken these. And so what we saw was that after one year, we saw that treatment group move from meeting that clinical criteria for mild mental health disorder into the category of likely to be well, and that did not happen in the control group. And all we did was provide people with unconditional cash, which is fairly extraordinary. Then finally, our last question was “How is guaranteed income generate agency over one's future? Are we seeing people have greater control and self-determination?” And the biggest finding that we had here was around employment. So, you know, we've talked a lot about assumptions around poverty, and those are certainly very politically driven. And one of the criticisms we often get is “well if you give people cash, they're going to stop working and they'll just quit their jobs en masse,” which is kind of silly if you think about it, because you can't live off of $500 a month anywhere, let alone California. And what we saw in the treatment group was that at baseline, 28% of people in the treatment group were fully employed and after one year, 40% were fully employed, and we did not see that same shift in the control group. Literally the opposite of what politically we're told will happen if you give people cash. And again, when we leaned into our mixed methods design and followed up with qualitative data to understand, OK, how did this happen and why? It was really interesting. Two things that happened first was that the cash removed material barriers to seeking employment that people could not address prior. So in many instances, people who moved from knitting together multiple part-time jobs to one full-time job literally couldn't take a shift off of work to even apply for another job, and the cash allowed them to do that. So it removed some material barriers: cost of transportation, being able to skip work. So if you think about it, it takes time to apply for full-time jobs and you're not guaranteed that you're going to get it. And there's also that protracted period of going through H.R., resigning one position and starting another. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you literally don't have time to do that because financial scarcity generates time scarcity. And so really, removing those material barriers allowed people to apply for positions that they knew they were eligible for and just couldn't didn't have the time to do. Second was an increased capacity for risk taking. So what we saw was several months into that first year of treatment, as people's anxiety dropped, as their scarcity dropped, they had more bandwidth to breathe and really plan for the future. So being able to set certain goals for themselves and take risks knowing that they had the cash to fall back on. So those are both a material thing, you know, as well as a cognitive capacity thing and really sort of being able to reimagine what they wanted for their future. Siers-Poisson: You were able to see how people were using the money by tracking the purchases. And actually, we should say people received the funds on a monthly basis and a debit card, right? Castro: Correct. So in Stockton, the $500 was disbursed each month on a prepaid debit card. So that debit card was reloaded each month right in the middle of the month, and we chose that date. I think it's a crucial thing that gets lost oftentimes in kind of the excitement around guaranteed income is the timing of the money. So most social safety net programs, specifically SNAP benefits or food stamps, they run out by the second or third week of the month. And so what you see is food security at the front of the end of the month and by the end of the month, families are really scraping to get by and having to borrow from friends and family simply to feed their kids. So we intentionally chose the middle of the month, you know, we're really looking to disrupt income volatility, your finances going up and down consistently within the home. So that was kind of chosen to smooth that piece over. Siers-Poisson: So what have you learned from the format of this, that on a debit card, you can see exactly where money was being spent and how much? What are you seeing? Castro: First, I'll say, what's happening with the spending data or how people are using the money, is not one of our primary research questions. We don't really care. I have to be totally honest with you. I mean, how people spend the money is not a research focus of ours. We're far more interested in how spending the money impacts people's lives and impacts their health and well-being. However, again, we echo back to what I said prior. The community is certainly interested in how the money is spent. And when we talked with those focus groups, specifically a group of housing activists who live in Section 8  housing, they were insistent. I mean, absolutely insistent that we were release spending data. And when we asked them why, rather than saying it was because they thought it should be monitored, it was because they had such faith in how people who looked like them would spend it. They said, “No, we want the world to see exactly what it's like to struggle to make ends meet. And we know exactly how low-income moms and dads are going to spend this money,” which is why we took that step. So, you know, the thing around on the spending data first, you know, most of the money went to food. So approximately 40% of the money that's tracked each month on that debit card went directly toward food purchases. And then the next category after that, I believe, was big box stores. And we're talking about things like utilities. Now key, a large portion of the money was transferred off of the card each month into cash or into other bank accounts. And this is the beauty of a mixed-methods design is you can follow up with families to determine why they did that. So when we followed up with people to sort of figure out like, “Hey, what's this about transferring the money into cash,” it was really interesting. Several things first, like I said before, Stockton experienced the worst the capitalism has to offer. They were targeted consistently for risky lending schemes. They still are. Scams are really prevalent in the community, so they had no reason to trust us whatsoever. So the community is sitting there like “I'm constantly targeted with risky things. Why would I trust you?” So people would quickly move the money off the card into an account that they know and that they trust where it felt safer. And then also, you know, a lot of folks are still conducting their everyday lives in cash. So spreading cash around family networks, paying babysitters, things to that effect. Siers-Poisson: I wanted to go back to that focus group being adamant about releasing those results because I'm guessing that they, and other people who are living similar lives to theirs, are very aware of those critics. The people who say, you know, they can't be trusted, they're going to spend it on alcohol and drugs. Do you think that was part of it too? Not just that they were confident that their cohort was going to spend it responsibly, but they wanted to be able to show people like, “Look, this is who we are, not who you think we are.” Castro: Yeah, that's a beautiful way of putting it. I mean, without question, is that they really wanted people to see, you know, so less than 1% of the money on the card that's tracked each month, meaning sort of those merchant codes, these are the same codes that we all have on a normal debit card, you know, went to alcohol and cigarettes. Now, is it possible that people pulled the money out in cash and actually spent some money? Yeah, I'm sure they did. You know, like I bought wine last night, like, don't we all do this? This is a whole kind of point of giving money—that they can be human. But yeah, like they were adamant that they wanted people to see what it was like and they were really clear. And saying, “there are these stereotypes that people have about families who are struggling to make ends meet, and this is a chance for us to show the world really that what it's like to be me.” And I have to say, that group was not just that group, but there are several that we worked with. The challenge of relinquishing control and giving them a true voice in the process has been one of the best decisions we ever could have made as a research team because I wouldn't have chosen to do that. I'd have just chosen to leave it be, not talk about it, not step out into that space. And they really have the confidence and the boldness to say that that we had an ethical obligation to do so. And I think they were right. Siers-Poisson: Have you seen any negative effects in in the data? Have there been any unintended consequences that you, you wish hadn't happened? Castro: That's a great question. Some of that we'll be talking about more as we release the full report. I'd say the number one sort of unintended consequence that would definitely have a negative impact has been interaction with benefits. So this is not just been true in Stockton, this has been true across all the other pilots that we're working with is that within the United States, our social safety net is very punitive. We have something called a benefits cliff, which means that for every dollar that somebody receives, we pull back some of their benefits. So families constantly are in this horrific calculation. “If I take this, you know, I want to take this extra shift at work because I need the cash and because I don't want to lose my job. But if I do that, I might lose my benefits.” And so you're constantly making this calculation, which leaves over less cognitive capacity for other things like goal setting and well-being. That's one issue. But second, it means that families are constantly trapped or penalizing them for working more. So what this meant in Stockton and across all these unconditional cash experiments is that we sometimes have to tailor our recruitment criteria and design to make sure that people aren't losing benefits. So we in many instances where people were randomized into the treatment group to receive the $500 they showed up for the onboarding. They went through the informed consent process and realized, “I'm at way too high of a risk for losing my health insurance, or my housing voucher or my SSI,” and just felt like “I'm too vulnerable. I can't take the risk.” So that is an unintended consequence that we haven't resolved yet. We do our best, but it's one that we're consistently contending with, and it's incredibly frustrating. And what ends up happening is that all of our data is about the people who are willing to take that risk or who were able to take that risk versus those who were forced because of the benefits flip issue to not enroll in these experiments in the first place. Siers-Poisson: I have to say on a human level that I would assume that would be crushing to someone who thinks that they're going to be able to take part in this and then realize it's too much of a risk. Did you get any feedback on it? Castro: Oh man. Yeah. Yes and no. I mean, on one hand, yes, there's times it's crushing and right now my center is embarking on a huge clinical trial with low income cancer patients, and it's a far more vexing issue in that experiment than the other ones. So, yeah, like at times, it is totally crushing. I think what's even more sobering was that people weren't surprised. You know, those who had to decline or who didn't bother were like, “well, of course, the systems turned again. Why would this work in my favor? The world's not set up for me. I don't matter. Government doesn't see me.” It was like, “yeah, of course. Of course it went that way.” And so we had a little bit of both. Siers-Poisson:  One of the things that I was thinking about, especially when you said that the Stockton experiment dispersed its last round of funding earlier this year. Do we know what happens when a program ends and those people who for a couple of years have that regular influx of cash no longer has it? Castro:  Yeah, it's a great question. You know, it's something that we're still sort of obviously collecting data on for all the experiments that we run, we collect data for six months after and then in some cases, there's administrative data that goes on for many years. So I can't give sort of an empirical answer to that quite yet. What I will say is, from a values perspective, this was something that we had to resolve as a team when we were building out Stockton early on, and there really wasn't anything to go on and asking ourselves the question like, “what does it mean to extend hope to somebody and then pull it away?” Like, “How dare you?” Is that even just, is that ethical?” And when I felt caught on that and my team felt caught on that, we went to our Associate Dean of Research, Dr. Solomon, who's a brilliant social work researcher. And she kind of got in my face a little bit, honestly. And she said, “Amy, you are a social worker. What is wrong with you? If you trust people to spend the cash, and to be able to enroll in the experiment, programs are closing on folks all the time. You don't trust them to weather the end?” And it was one of the most profound things of mentorship that I could receive at that moment in time, because she really challenged my biases. Like, I had this bias like people couldn't handle it. And that's not to say that there's not harm that's caused when something ends. But, you know, what Dr. Solomon pointed out, was the poor constantly having things pulled out from underneath them. There's tremendous resilience there. How dare you assume that they'd be worse off? Why don't you wait and see what happens? So right now, we're waiting to see what happens. Siers-Poisson: You talked earlier about how much of a paradigm shift this is of giving people money, trusting them to spend it as they need. And to me, there's definitely an element of trying to restore some dignity to life for people who have, in many cases, had that taken away from them and respecting them and their choices. How do you see efforts like this working to change the narrative about people living in poverty? Castro: Oh, I mean, it's crucial. Right, so here's the thing scientists tell terrible stories, we're bad at it. If we were better at communicating with the public, people would be vaccinated and COVID would be a little less right now. Right. We're bad at telling stories, we're good at staying in our ivory towers and measuring things. To me, it is without question crucial that we that we deal with narrative. So when we look back throughout U.S. history, we know that when policy windows open and we design new poverty alleviation methods, or we design new policies that really move the needle, we have two things that happen. One, we have consensus on data. So we actually know how to design a good program based on what's happening. And that's colleague to colleague, data to data, right? But then second, we see a shift in public mood. And if you do not tackle that public narrative around deservedness, around shame, around blame and you don't deal with public mood, all you do is migrate shame, blame, and assumptions about race and class from one social program to the other. So one of my driving concerns right now, as guaranteed income programs and conversations take off across the country, is making certain that we are keeping our eye on that narrative change work and not assume that this is some sort of silver bullet that's going to get rid of hundreds of years of racism in the United States, because it's not going to. If we don't do that narrative change work, we're just going to migrate the myth of the welfare queen off of TANF and onto guaranteed income. How do we do that? We're still working on it. But what we do know is that privileging voice, privileging community voice in the process, definitely helps us with this, along with dealing with a lot of things like discourse analysis and leading into narratives and putting people's stories out there in the press and in measured ways where, you know, if you want to change the narrative, change the narrator. It doesn't need to be me being the one who's in front of the mic all the time telling those stories. Siers-Poisson: You said earlier that Stockton was the first pilot project, and there are so many more going on right now that you have a hard time keeping track of how many. So what does success look like as these programs are kind of mushrooming around the country? Castro: I mean, everybody sort of defines that a little bit differently. For us within the center, we define success as first of all, were we able to design and experiment with integrity? So were we able to answer the research questions that we set out to answer with the design that we implemented? That's first and foremost, success. Second, to answer on a values perspective, really, we're pretty clear about what we're trying to do. We want to see policies on unconditional cash. Now again, that is not a silver bullet. But what I think success would look like to us as a center is having policies and unconditional cash that are informed by science, informed by data, and not just informed by somebody's good idea. So for us, we really want to see this movement from pilot to policy, but that those policies are evidence based and that they're rooted in science and rooted in real people's lives. Siers-Poisson: Professor Castro, thanks so much for sharing your work with us, and we'll definitely be looking forward to talking about the results from that second year of Stockton. Castro: Yeah, happy to. Thanks for having me. Siers-Poisson: Thanks so much to Professor Amy Castro, Founding Director of the Center for Guaranteed Income Research and an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. If you would like to learn more about pilot programs around the country, check out the website for Mayors for a Guaranteed Income. That's at mayors for A-G-I dot org. The production of this podcast was supported in part by funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, but its contents don't necessarily represent the opinions or policies of that office, any other agency of the federal government, or the Institute for Research on Poverty. Music for the episode is by Poi Dog Pondering. Thanks for listening.  

Ever since the start of the pandemic, the people on the wrong side of the K-shaped recovery have taken it on the chin. So many people have lost income and savings, and the number of people falling behind on the rent or the mortgage is truly hard to fathom. So what's a concrete, actually helpful thing that people can do to try and keep from losing their home? The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation published what they call a roadmap to help prevent people from losing housing during the pandemic. Avenel Joseph, Vice President of Policy at the RWJF joins KYW Newsradio In Depth to talk about the roadmap and break down some changes at the local and national level that need to happen to advance equity in housing. Take a look at the report here: https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/collections/housing-and-health.html Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We're going to heat things up right off the bat talking about the newest CT Green Bank program to help you put heat pump technology into your home and digging into some details about a low interest rate, no money down option for heating, cooling, filtering, and taking care of your hot water service, too. Then we're circling back with Assisted Living Services focusing on an important state sponsored program that's helping keep your aging loved ones safe at home and well cared for, without creating a huge financial hit — the Adult Family Living or AFL initiative. And we're closing with a very special guest from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation unveiling a comprehensive new report on childhood obesity - and how the COVID pandemic is exacerbating the trend - especially for children of color and kids in financially distressed households.

This week on [un]phased, Shaunna and Lisa open our eyes to privilege. Privilege exists in many forms, but it is invisible to those who have it. The insidious nature of privilege is a result of systems built by people who wish to maintain power for specific groups. Thus, those systems do not support the needs of all, benefitting some and not others. Privilege is also contextual; our intersecting identities may grant us privilege in some circumstances, and take it away in others. Acknowledging the ways in which we have identity privilege in our lives is not easy. It requires introspection, and the ability to sit in the discomfort of realizing where our privileges lie. But in doing so, we can start to create spaces with those who experience marginalization as a result of the privileges each of us holds. With a little humility, we can pull the proverbial curtain back and name the power at play. Find the “Equality vs Equity” cycling infographic at https://fullframeinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/RWJF_bikes_equality_equity_PURPLE.jpg

Healthcare careers are rewarding and fulfilling because people get to partner with communities to find ways to solve health-related problems. In this week’s episode, let’s get to know my guest, Reginald Tucker-Seeley, MA, ScM, ScD, and see how he’s making a difference in health disparities and health equity.  Part One of ‘RWJF Health Policy Fellows: An Interview with Reginald Tucker-Seely’ Reginald Tucker-Seeley, MA, ScM, ScD, is the inaugural holder of the Edward L. Schneider Chair in Gerontology and assistant professor at the USC Leonard Davis School of Gerontology. He manages the Tucker-Seeley Research Lab at the gerontology school. He completed master and doctoral degrees in public health (social and behavioral sciences) at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH) and a postdoctoral fellowship in cancer prevention and control at HSPH and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.   His research has focused primarily on social determinants of health across the life course, such as the association between the neighborhood environment and health behavior; and individual-level socioeconomic determinants of multimorbidity, mortality, self-rated physical, mental and oral health, and adult height. Dr. Tucker-Seeley has received funding from the National Cancer Institute for research focused on developing measures of financial well-being for cancer research. The first grant was an R21, “Development of a measure of financial well-being: Expanding our notion of SES,” The second grant was a K01 Career Development grant, “Financial well-being following a prostate cancer diagnosis." He is also interested in how the neighborhood environment is defined and measured. I recognized the demographic shift and we're going to have more older adults. We need to have policy solutions for addressing it.” — Reginald Tucker-Seeley, MA, ScM, ScD (01:46-01:59) Dr. Tucker-Seeley was a 2017-2018 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Fellow. We did our policy fellowships at the same time, and that's how we are connected. Reggie became involved in the aging space because he recognized the impending demographic shift in the number of older adults, which will require policy solutions for aging well.    His primary interest originally was in the financial well-being of individuals. He was drawn to the health and retirement study, which is a large population study of adults over age fifty.  This rich dataset had many financial-related questions and it became a way for him to marry his interest in financial well-being and the lives of older adults. He completed his doctoral training at the Harvard School of Public Health, where he did the three paper format for his dissertation using the health and retirement study. He focused on financial hardship and its association with health outcomes, in addition to looking at the association between physical activity, behavior, and perceived safety.  He has a longstanding interest in the impact of health and social policy on racial/ethnic minorities and across socioeconomic groups. He has experience working on local and state-level health disparities policy and measuring and reporting health disparities at the state level. Tucker-Seeley was selected for the 2017-2018 cohort of the Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellowship Program. The fellowship includes a one-year residency in Washington, D.C., working either in a federal congressional or executive office on health policy issues. “Tens of thousands of bills are introduced every year, but only one to two percent make it into law.” —  Melissa Batchelor, PhD, RN, FNP, FAAN (24:14-24:20) Before joining the USC faculty, Reginald was an assistant professor of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and in the Center for Community Based Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Prior to graduate study at Harvard, he received an undergraduate degree in accounting from the University of Tulsa. He worked in the accounting/auditing field for five years, most recently as an internal auditor at St. Louis University. He also completed an MA degree in human development counseling from St. Louis University and a clinical counseling internship at the Washington University Student Health and Counseling Service. Part Two of ‘2020: ‘RWJF Health Policy Fellows: An Interview with Reginald Tucker-Seely’ “I looked at the fellowship experience as a learning opportunity.” —  Reginald Tucker-Seeley, MA, ScM, ScD (10:07-10:11) Reginald lived in Rhode Island, the smallest U.S. state by area and the seventh least populous, making it very easy to be active in state health policy. He was on a commission for Health Advocacy and Equity, and that commission was a legislatively mandated body that required writing a state-level health disparities report every two years. Even with public health training experience, he thought, "If I don't know how to do this, chances are most of our students don't know how to do this either." So, he ended up developing a new course at Harvard called Measuring and Reporting Health Disparities that included a three-part case study that would take students through the process of having to write a state-level health disparities report.  He didn't have any federal health policy experience during his time as an assistant professor at Harvard. That's how he found the Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellowship program and also the White House Fellowship Program. The Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellowship program includes a three-month orientation on how federal health policy gets made. He knew it would provide him the resources to add the federal component to his teaching.  How to Connect More with Reginald Tucker-Seeley Linkedin: https://bit.ly/3ha6GIf Twitter: https://twitter.com/RegTuckSee About Melissa I earned my Bachelor of Science in Nursing (‘96) and Master of Science in Nursing (‘00) as a Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP) from the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) School of Nursing (SON). I truly enjoy working with the complex medical needs of older adults. I worked full-time for five years as FNP in geriatric primary care across many long-term care settings (skilled nursing homes, assisted living, home and office visits) then transitioned into academic nursing in 2005, joining the faculty at UNCW SON as a lecturer. I obtained my PhD in Nursing and a post-Master’s Certificate in Nursing Education from the Medical University of South Carolina College of Nursing (’11) and then joined the faculty at Duke University School of Nursing as an Assistant Professor. My family moved to northern Virginia in 2015 and led to me joining the faculty at George Washington University (GW) School of Nursing in 2018 as a (tenured) Associate Professor where I am also the Director of the GW Center for Aging, Health and Humanities. Find out more about her work at https://melissabphd.com/.

Hosts Mark Masselli and Margaret Flinter welcome Dr. Susan Hassmiller, Senior Advisor for Nursing at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Advisor to the President for Nursing at the National Academy of Medicine. Dr. Hassmiller talks about the dramatic role America’s 3.8 million nurses are playing in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, how the nursing profession is playing a critical role in meeting challenges in primary care and health disparities, as well as her work crafting the Future of Nursing goals at RWJF and the National Academies. To stream our Station live 24/7 visit www.HealthcareNOWRadio.com or ask your Smart Device to “….Play HealthcareNOW Radio”. Find all of our network podcasts on your favorite podcast platforms and be sure to subscribe and like us. Learn more at www.healthcarenowradio.com/listen/

It’s hard enough when there’s no pandemic to keep mentally ill inmates from falling through the holes in a patchwork system when they come out. Now it’s harder than ever. A huge number of people who are locked up in this country are mentally ill or addicted to drugs or both. This episode, we go to Cleveland, Ohio to follow a psychiatrist and a social worker as they, first, try to find and, then, support recently released inmates, all while social distancing. The United States of Anxiety’s health coverage is supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Working to build a Culture of Health that ensures everyone in America has a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. More at RWJF.org.

We’ve got two dispatches from communities where "social-distancing" is not an option. And where decisions we made long ago about homelessness and immigration policy are getting in the way of our ability to protect against Covid 19. WNYC Investigative Reporter Matt Katz brings us calls from inside immigration detention centers. And our reporter Marianne McCune checks in with a homeless advocate, Sam Dennison, who lives and works inside San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood, with the highest number of people sleeping in tents in the city. The United States of Anxiety’s health coverage is supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Working to build a Culture of Health that ensures everyone in America has a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. More at RWJF.org.

Our current situation has left many of us asking fundamental questions about our work, about our relationships, and the meaning of home. This week, we're checking in on one another and taking stock. Host Kai Wright calls reporter Jenny Casas on her drive from New York to Chicago. Then, he and Dr. Gail Christopher, Executive Director at National Collaborative for Health Equity, connect for a conversation about Kai's "Katrina Feeling," how racism is poised to affect us all in the face of COVID-19, and why it's important to spend some time among the trees.  The United States of Anxiety’s health coverage is supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Working to build a Culture of Health that ensures everyone in America has a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. More at RWJF.org.

Mike Jackson, like many descendants of the Great Migration, has a family home that was built from protest, resilience and ingenuity. In the spring of 1950, his parents met in secret with 25 other families to create Better Homes of South Bend. Their efforts would later become a collection of homes on the 1700 and 1800 blocks of N. Elmer St. But today, the value of those houses doesn’t match the work it took to put them there. This week: what these family stories of housing in the “heartland” say about inequity in home ownership today. - Gabrielle Robinson is the author of Better Homes of South Bend: An American Story of Courage. Robinson is currently working with a Washington D.C. based playwright to adapt the Better Homes story into a play.  - Andre Perry is a Fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and the author of The Devaluation of Assets in Black Neighborhoods and the forthcoming book Know Your Price.  - The full interview with Leroy and Margaret Cobb, as well as other interviews about South Bend life during the time Better Homes organizing, can be heard through the Oral History Collection of the Indiana University South Bend Civil Rights Heritage Center.  Hosted by Kai Wright. Reported by Jenny Casas. The United States of Anxiety’s health coverage is supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Working to build a Culture of Health that ensures everyone in America has a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. More at RWJF.org. CORRECTION: In this episode, we say that Andre Perry's study was published "last year." It actually came out in November 2018.

Elbert Lester has lived his full 94 years in Quitman County, Mississippi, on land he and his family own. That’s exceptional for black people in this area, and some family members even say the land came to them through “40 acres and a mule.” But that's pretty unlikely, so host Kai Wright goes on a search for the truth, and uncovers a story about an old and fundamental question in American politics -- one at the center of the current election: Who are the rightful owners of this country’s staggering wealth? - John Willis is author of Forgotten Time - Eric Foner is author of The Second Founding - The National Memorial for Peace and Justice is located in Montgomery, Alabama. For more information about documented lynchings in Mississippi, and elsewhere, visit the Equal Justice Initiative's interactive report, Lynching in America. You can navigate to each county to learn about documented lynchings there. The United States of Anxiety’s health coverage is supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Working to build a Culture of Health that ensures everyone in America has a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being. More at RWJF.org.

Obsolesence by Martha Wells - Take Us To A Better Place by RWJF

Viral Content by Madeline Ashby - Take Us To A Better Place by RWJF

Brief Exercises In Mindfulness by Calvin Baker - Take Us To A Better Place by RWJF

Experts take on the concerns most expressed by American employees in a poll done by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The panelists also describe lessons learned from employers that cultivate healthy environments – to see if there are feasible measures to produce a more accessible, supportive, healthier workplace. Presented July 11, 2016 in Collaboration with The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and NPR. Watch the entire series from The Forum at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health at www.ForumHSPH.org. Date: July 11, 2016