Podcasts about Sanford School

A FACT CHECK at the White House website proclaims “President Trump will always a protect Social Security and Medicare.” It goes on to quote Elon Musk saying “The waste and fraud in entitlement spending — which is most of the federal spending is entitlements — so, that's, like, the big one to eliminate. That's the, sort of half-trillion, maybe $6-700 billion a year.” After a list of “facts” about fraud, improper payments to deceased individuals and improper payments to both SSA and Medicare and Medicaid services, the page goes on to ask “What kind of a person doesn't support eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending that ultimately costs taxpayers more?”Link to the Whitehouse web site:https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/03/fact-check-president-trump-will-always-protect-social-security-medicare/Am I missing something? First, Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements, they are services for which older Americans have paid for by deductions from THEIR salaries. And , second, where is, in this so-called Fact Sheet, plans for how President Trump is going to preserve Social Security and Medicare except for a statement that reads “The Trump Administration will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. President Trump himself has said it (over and over and over again).”Conversely, President's Trump's budget seeks to reduce or eliminate the Older Americans Act, to dissolve the Administration for Community Living, and cut funding to critical services that help older adults to live independently.In order to be able to understand more completely what's going on, we called on Nathan Boucher, to explain the effect of Trump's real budget proposals on senior care. Nathan is Associate Research Professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy and Duke University faculty at Sanford School of Public Policy, the Medical School, and the Nursing School. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Duke Center for the Study of Aging & Human Development as well as Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy Core Faculty. Nathan and I talked about the Older Americans Act and the Administration for Community Living which provide services like Meals on Wheels, Adult Day Care, Falls and Elder Abuse Prevention and Respite care as well as services for younger people with disabilities. We discussed that despite reassurances that Medicare and Medicaid will not be touched, plans are in the works for reducing Medicaid and adding a work requirement and more difficult paperwork which would affect at least 7.6 million people.

Coach Stan Waterman shares his journey from growing up in Wilmington, Delaware to becoming the Head Coach at Delaware State.After playing Division I basketball at the University of Delaware he began his coaching journey at as an Assistant Coach at Wilmington and then moved onto the Sanford School. In his 29 seasons at the Sanford School he led the program to 571 wins, 10 state championship game appearances, winning eight state titles, including his last two seasons in 2019 and 2021.He went onto coach with USA Basketball where he was on staff for the the gold-medal-winning 2018 USA Men's U17 World Cup Team and the 2017 USA Men's U16 national team. Stan Waterman was named the Head Coach at Delaware State in 2021 and has increased their win in each season at the helm.**Sponsored by FastModel**Be sure to check out FastModelSports.com and use the promo code "BOXSCORE" for 15% off your purchase.

In this episode John A. Hovanesian, MD, FACS, and Jim Mazzo are live from SightLine at the ASCRS meeting with guests Nicole R. Fram, MD, Kerry D. Solomon, MD, Vance Thompson, MD, and Steve Speares. Welcome to the Eyeluminaries podcast 00:02 Review of episode 32 00:55 Intro of Nicole Fram, MD 01:16 Tell us why the MAHRVELS team is likely to be the leading fundraisers and why you picked your character for the team to portray (The Scarlet Witch)? 02:24 Meeting about complications from cataract surgery, what do you think is the next big phase on how we're going to handle complications with technology? 04:05 Psychology of managing patients/conveying care 05:42 What advice do you give to people who are starting their career? 06:50 Intro of Kerry Solomon, MD 09:30 What do we often get wrong with cataract surgery and what do we often get right? 10:25 How do you stay an entrepreneur and a leading physician? 11:55 What is Operation Sight? How did you create it? 14:19 Where will keratorefractive surgery and lens-based surgery be in 5 or 10 years? 18:30 Intro of Vance Thompson, MD 21:24 What's it like to be ASCRS president? 21:59 What is BRiCS and why is it important? 23:54 You've created a culture; can you talk about that culture you've created at your institute? 29:30 Tell us about your winery! 33:28 Intro of Steve Speares 36:45 ASCRS just wrapped up. Your idea of creating a SightLine with a business approach, what did you do and what was the idea? 38:00 As you look back and you look ahead, what changes do you hope to make? What do you hope your legacy will be at ACSRS? 40:57 Can you expand more on how Washington, DC and Trump administration will impact your society/group? 44:19 Richard Lindstrom in ASCRS hall of fame, tell us your own perspective and a good story 46:29 Preview of episode 34 52:09 Give us your feedback 52:40 Thanks for listening 52:56 Nicole Fram, MD, is an adjunct assistant professor at the John A. Moran Eye Institute at the University of Utah. She is also the secretary for ASCRS, is a member of the Cataract Clinical Committee, and leads the Ophthalmology Quicksand Chronicles podcast with co-host Elizabeth Yeu, MD. John A. Hovanesian, MD, FACS, is a faculty member at the UCLA Jules Stein Eye Institute and in private practice at Harvard Eye Associates in Laguna Hills, California. Jim Mazzo is an ophthalmic industry veteran with over 40 years as CEO/chairman of both public and private companies, including Allergan, Avellino Labs, Carl Zeiss, Neurotech Pharmaceuticals and AMO. Additionally, he is an advisor for Bain Capital and CVC Capital Partners and sits on numerous industry boards such as MDMA. Kerry Solomon, MD, is internationally renowned for LASIK and refractive cataract surgery. He is the co-founder of Operation Sight. He is the former chairman of the ASCRS FDA Committee. Steve Speares, MD, is the executive director at ASCRS. Vance Thompson, MD, is the founder of Vance Thompson Vision and director of refractive surgery in Sioux Falls, SD. He serves as a professor of ophthalmology at the Sanford School of Medicine at the University of South Dakota. Thompson is the immediate past president of ASCRS. We'd love to hear from you! Send your comments/questions to eyeluminaries@healio.com. Follow John Hovanesian on X (formerly Twitter) @DrHovanesian. Disclosures: Hovanesian consults widely in the ophthalmic field. Mazzo reports being an advisor for Anivive Lifesciences, Avellino Labs, Bain Capital, CVC Capital and Zeiss; executive chairman of Neurotech, Preceyes BV and TearLab; and sits on the board of Crystilex, Centricity Vision, IanTech, Lensgen and Visus. Healio could not confirm relevant financial disclosures for Fram, Speares, Solomon, and Thompson at the time of publication.

Recently, the U.S. has experienced several financial crises - all of them hard on American families.  In 2008, over eight million Americans lost their jobs in the Great Recession. In 2020, unemployment was at 13 percent thanks to the COVID pandemic. By early 2025, the economy had recovered and unemployment had dropped back to the 4 percent range. Then sweeping new tariffs sent the stock market reeling.  Vicki Bogan, who studies household finance, inequality and investment decision making, talks with Manoj Mohanan, Interim Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, about what this latest financial shock might mean for families. Read show notes/transcript at our website.

This week on the Bountifull Podcast, we're joined by Dirk Philipsen, Duke professor, economic historian, and one of the world's leading thinkers on capitalism and well-being. In a world where burnout, inequality, and the pressure to grow at all costs feel ever-present, this conversation gives voice to so many of the questions we quietly carry—but don't always have the words for.Together, we explore what capitalism really is—beyond just markets and money—and how it subtly shapes our relationships, our work, our sense of self, and our definition of success. Dirk offers a thoughtful, grounded lens on how we got here, why the system demands constant growth, and how we can begin to imagine and live into something more bountiful.If you've ever felt worn down by the grind or wondered whether there's another way to measure meaning, this episode offers radical hope, practical insight, and a reminder that a better future is possible—even within the system we live in now.In This Episode, You'll Discover:

ACTA President Michael Poliakoff welcomes The Honorable John Hillen, distinguished resident fellow at the Center for Politics in Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy and an executive-in-residence of the Political Science Department. Dr. Hillen is a combat veteran and Bronze Star recipient, a former assistant U.S. secretary of state, a successful business leader, and the author of The Strategy Dialogues: A Primer on Business Strategy and Strategic Management. He also serves on ACTA's National Commission on American History and Civic Education. Drs. Poliakoff and Hillen discuss how to engage students in the study of American civics and higher education's role in preparing students to be next generation leaders in the areas of American foreign policy and national security.

Many countries use direct cash aid programs as an integral part of their social safety net. In the United States, there have been few national efforts, but more and more guaranteed income programs are being implemented at state, county, and local levels. In this episode, Dr. Lisa Gennetian draws on her co-authored paper, “Unconditional Cash Transfers for Families with Children in the U.S.: A Scoping Review,” to provide an overview of cash assistance programs both in the US and in other countries, with a particular focus on programs aimed at families with children. Lisa Gennetian is the Pritzker Professor of Early Learning Policy Studies in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. She is also an IRP Affiliate.

Early in his career our guest, Bill Adair, worked as a journalist, author, and later founded the fact-checking organization Politifact. And in 2013 he accepted a position at Duke University as the Knight Professor of the Practice of Journalism and Public Policy, where he now teaches journalism in the Sanford School of Public Policy and directs the Duke Reporters' Lab. We discuss the negative effects of lying in politics, different types of lies, why people fall for lies, how fact-checking works, the response of journalists to political lying, and his recent book: Beyond the Big Lie-The Epidemic of Political Lying, Why Republicans Do It More, and How It Could Burn Down Our Democracy.  

The U.S. is a nation of immigrants, but we have a complex history on the topic. At times, the government has tried deporting large numbers of immigrants, with the goal of protecting the jobs and wages of native-born Americans. The current administration has announced plans to deport all undocumented immigrants, even some legal immigrants, as well as new travel bans. Hannah Postel researches the relationship of migration and economic development and provides a historical perspective on immigration deportations and restrictions. She talks with Anna Gassman-Pines, who leads faculty affairs at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Read show notes/transcript at our website.

The price of housing has skyrocketed in recent years. Scholars estimate we are short between two and five million homes nationwide. Warren Lowell spent the last several years immersed in American housing policy as part of his PhD studies at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. For one study, he interviewed real estate developers and investors. He joins Sanford interim Dean Manoj Mohanan podcast to talk about what he learned. Read show notes/transcript at our website.

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, Congress established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB. It protects Americans from predatory practices by consumer finance companies. The CFPB enforces federal laws and investigates fraud and abuse. It has sent over 6.8 million complaints to companies for resolution so far. The bureau has been targeted for massive cuts by the new administration which, thus far, have been blocked by a federal judge. Mallory SoRelle, a consumer finance expert and author of Democracy Declined: the Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection, talks with Manoj Mohanan, interim Dean of Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy, about the CFPB and what dismantling it could mean for Americans. Read show notes/transcript

What does it mean for the country that President Trump has signed an executive order to begin dismantling the Department of Education? Leslie Babinski, a researcher who focuses on education and former director of the Duke Center for Child and Family Policy talks about this extraordinary change with guest host Anna Gassman-Pines, Senior Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Read show notes/transcript.

Deondra Rose is an associate professor of political science and history who serves as the Kevin D. Gorter Associate Professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. She joins “Closer Look” to discuss her latest book, "The Power of Black Excellence: HBCUs and the Fight for American Democracy." The book explores the history of HBCUs and the distinctive role they have played in shaping American democracy since 1837. Plus, Amanda Lee Williams used her love for improv to help address her father’s needs during his battle with memory loss. Now, she’s the program director for Improving Care Through Improv. She has teamed up with experts from Emory and Georgia State University to help train other caregivers and prepare them for unexpected moments. Rose talks to Williams, Dr. Candace Kemp, a gerontology professor at Georgia State University and Dr. Ted Johnson from Emory University's Department of Medicine. They discussed more details about the program. Williams also provided an improv demonstration about how they prepare caregivers to talk with someone who is experiencing memory loss.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President Trump returns to the White House with his “America First” approach - a strategy critics say often comes at the expense of international alliances and multilateral commitments. Duke professor Susan Colbourn, a historian specializing in NATO, joins Manoj Mohanan, interim Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke to discuss the topic. She's the author of Euromissiles: The Nuclear Weapons That Nearly Destroyed NATO, and is associate director of the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy. Read show notes/transcript.

It's no secret that Americans' ability to engage in meaningful conversations across political, cultural, and ideological divides feels more strained than ever. In this episode, we discuss how to bring people together. Two words: civil discourse. Duke professor Abdullah Antepli is a nationally recognized expert in civil discourse. Recently he's been teaching a course on the topic and is creating public forums for dialogue between people with opposing views. Antepli leads Polis, Duke's Center for Politics. He talks with Manoj Mohanan, interim Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke. This episode is part of a series of election-related conversations.

This Black Friday, The Delve takes a hard look at the cost of our 'growth at all costs' mentality. From the Great Pacific Garbage Patch—twice the size of Texas—to the staggering reality that 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, host Chalin Askew explores how our economic system prioritizes production and consumption over sustainability and happiness. Joining the discussion is Professor Dirk Philipsen from Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy, who makes the case for Degrowth: a radical yet necessary shift toward a future built on sustainability, wellbeing, and true prosperity. Can we rethink success before it's too late?

During his recent campaign, President-elect Donald Trump made various promises consistent with the ongoing effort by Elon Musk and MAGA Republicans to target researchers and civil society groups that study issues such as propaganda and mis- and disinformation. Today's guest has looked deeply at this effort, conducting an analysis of over 1800 pages of primary documents to identify the strategic approaches employed by these parties, including the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the outcomes and broader democratic implications of the campaign. Philip M. Napoli is the James R. Shepley Professor of Public Policy, the Director of the DeWitt Wallace Center for Media & Democracy, and Senior Associate Dean for Faculty and Research for the Sanford School at Duke University. His findings are published in a new paper The Information Society titled "In pursuit of ignorance: The institutional assault on disinformation and hate speech research."

On this Veterans Day 2024, Rich welcomes Dr. Paul A. Dillon, adjunct instructor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, and a Vietnam veteran. Next, we remember the legacy of President Ronald Reagan with his son, Michael Reagan, president of the Reagan Legacy Foundation. Plus, Prof. Nick Giordano of Suffolk County Community College, gives his reaction to President-Elect Trump's plan to overhaul education, as well as some of the early picks to fill the incoming administration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This special live election night coverage is part of Student News Live, a non-partisan news hub to amplify the voices of student journalists that coordinated a live audio and video feed starting at noon ET on Tuesday, Nov. 5.WKNC at NC State took the midnight to 1 a.m. slot. Public affairs director and “Eye on the Triangle” host Emilia Rivadeneira, a fourth-year student studying political science and communication, divided her hour into two 30-minute segments.Rivadeneira was joined live by Mac McCorkle, Professor of the Practice in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, and Elizabeth Lane, Assistant Professor of Political Science at NC State. They offered an analysis of the election results, including the impact of Donald Trump's win in North Carolina, the N.C. Supreme Court race, the citizenship voting amendment, and the future of North Carolina voting patterns. The interview was simulcast on Student News Live and WKNC 88.1 FM HD-1 and recorded for YouTube.WKNC then considered how NC State students felt about the election in a conversation with Annabelle Rossi, a third-year student studying political science and President of Students for Immigrant Rights and Equality, and Zania Sanders, a third-year student studying science, technology and society and AYA Ambassador at the African American Cultural Center. They discussed anxiety about the election, what issues were important to college students, youth voter turnout and influences, and the role of student organizations in election advocacy.

The Politifact founder, Duke University professor and Pulitzer Prize winning writer Bill Adair certainly isn't the first person to raise the alarm about the problem of lying in American politics. But what's really interesting about his new book, Beyond the Big Lie, is that Adair also has innovative solutions to fixing what he calls an “epidemic of political lying.” One idea, he explained to me, is punishing politicians for their lies through fines. Another, is by pioneering a national pledge, in the manner of Grover Norquist's successful taxpayer protection pledge, to commit politicians to telling the truth. Good honest stuff from America's foremost authority on political lying. As a reporter at the Tampa Bay Times, Bill Adair covered everything from small-town crime to big-time politics. He was a metro reporter who wrote about natural disasters, a business reporter who covered the airlines and a data journalist who explored the patterns of race and wealth. As the newspaper's Washington bureau chief, he took readers behind the scenes to watch a White House advance team, to see the backroom deals of a congressional chairman, and to watch lawyers prepare for the Supreme Court. He interviewed a president, countless senators and once got to chat with Bono. In 2007, he launched PolitiFact, a fact-checking site with a Truth-O-Meter that rates politicians' factual claims. The site spawned a dozen state sites that rated the claims of governors and other state officials. It also inspired fact-checkers around the world to start their own sites. He then co-founded the International Fact-Checking Network. He came to Duke University in 2013 as the Knight Professor of the Practice of Journalism and Public Policy. He teaches journalism in the Sanford School of Public Policy and directs the Duke Reporters' Lab, where students and professionals conduct research about fact-checking and the future of journalism. His awards include the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting (with the PolitiFact staff), the Manship Prize for New Media in Democratic Discourse and the Everett Dirksen Award for Distinguished Coverage of Congress.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

With food insecurity rising the world over, we cannot escape the reality that climate change is changing our food supply. This means people's livelihoods and lifestyles are changing too, particularly in developing countries. Join us on the Leading Voices in Food podcast as we discuss the rising impact of climate change on food security and livelihoods in Central America, specifically Honduras. Host Norbert Wilson, Director of the World Food Policy Center, along with co-host Sarah Bermeo, delve into the challenges and solutions with experts Marie-Soleil Turmel from Catholic Relief Services and Ana Andino from Duke University. Learn about the Dry Corridor, the effects of climate shocks, land restoration practices, and the role of international support in building community resilience. Interview Summary Sarah - Marie, some of your work with Catholic Relief Services engages with smallholder farmers in an area known as the Dry Corridor of Central America. Can you explain what the Dry Corridor is and provide some context about the food security situation in that area, and how much do residents depend on their own crops to provide food for their families? Marie - So, the Dry Corridor of Central America refers to a region that stretches across the Pacific side of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The region has a long dry season and a rainy season when the crops are produced. In the last 10 years, this region has been characterized as one of the most vulnerable to climate change. Mainly due to prolonged dry spells in the growing season and more unpredictable rainfall patterns. This region is made up of many small holder farmers in the rural population. These are small hillside farms growing staple crops, maize or corn, and beans with relatively low yields. And most of the household consumption is coming from these farms, and they're selling any surplus that is produced in a good year. These are rain-fed production systems. So, the amount of food that the farms produced is directly tied to the amount of rainfall, making them extremely vulnerable to droughts and climate shocks. And also the region has a very high degree of soil degradation. It's estimated 70 percent of agricultural soil is in a state of severe degradation. This makes farms even more susceptible to climate shocks. So, this is a region that's already struggling with poverty. Close to 8 million people are living in a situation of food insecurity. And now with increasing climate shocks that are affecting crop yields, it's sending more people into a situation of food emergency and requiring food aid. Norbert - Thank you, Marie, for providing that context. Ana, let's now turn to you. I understand that you've worked with the Honduran Ministry of Finance and the Inter American Development Bank on issues relating to economic development in Honduras. What do you view as some of the key development challenges facing the country? Ana - So Honduras faces several challenges which have been dragged out for many years. And now some of them have even worsened, particularly since 2020 when we were hit by the pandemic and the storms Eta and Iota. It's tough to pinpoint just one or a few of them since it's a convergence of complex scenarios, but if I had to mention one - and going along with the conversation we're having today - I would mention intersection between climate change and economic vulnerability. As we heard Marie talking about the Dry Corridor, there are many rural communities that rely heavily on agriculture. But climate variability has made it even more difficult to maintain stable food production, affecting income and food insecurity. So, by mid-2023, about 25 percent of the population was suffering from food insecurity. Nationally, agriculture provides employment for approximately 30 percent of the country's workforce. And there's verification agriculture is also limited, which, this dependency constrains sustainable growth and resilience. Also, I cannot leave behind the access to basic services such as water and electricity. Of course, I'll include in this education, right? It is important, and it's not only a matter of access to them, but also the quality of their services. Many households lack access to clean water. This impacts their daily life, but also their agricultural productivity. And even in the main cities, there is an inconsistent access to water and electricity, which affects livelihoods, but also small businesses to larger industries. Education is a no-brainer, since both access and quality remain a serious challenge. In this list, I would also like to add crime and violence, which remain high. And even though there has been an improvement in the last years, particularly reducing homicide rates, it still remains as one of the highest in Latin America. The situation is even worse when we look at femicide. Because Honduras is still one of the highest or has one of the highest rates of femicide in the region. That often goes along with high levels of impunity. And finally, we're almost getting there to my list of challenges, I would say that there is a lack of infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. There is no reliable access to roads or markets, which affects a lot of smallholder farmers. This also affects connectivity for roads. It limits access to health care and education. And these all are challenges that compound together. And yeah, to finally wrap it up, it's that without institutions that can effectively implement policies and manage resources, it'll be hard to, to have development efforts and to see growth in the country. Norbert - This sounds like a daunting set of challenges. And I realized that obviously in this conversation and the work that's going to happen later this week, we're not able to address all of those. But I would like to pull back and ask you both about issues around climate. And so, for the both of you, I'd be intrigued to understand this. Central America is believed to be highly susceptible to climate change, and Marie, you've already mentioned this. What are some of the key effects that climate change is having on the region? And I've heard you already talk about issues around availability of water. But how do these affect the livelihoods and particularly, how does this affect food security? So, Ana, let's begin with you. Ana – So, as Marie mentioned, there are a lot of extreme weather events going around, such as prolonged droughts, intense rainfall, tropical storms. And these weather patterns have a direct and severe impact on agricultural productivity. Especially in regions where families rely a lot on subsistence farming. It becomes a challenge to plant, to harvest crops. This leads to a reduction in yields. Also, people have less income, referring to income losses, which in the end has a cascading effect on food insecurity and poverty. So basically, what happens is that families have less to sell, but also have less to eat. If we transition to urban areas, climate change could cause floodings and damage to infrastructure, affecting severely industrial activity as well. This will disrupt the livelihoods of the people. In urban and rural areas, it exacerbates difficulties in accessing food, in accessing clean water, in accessing electricity. And just to give you an example, this happened back in 2020, right after Eta and Iota. We had long lasting effects, causing damage to agriculture, to livestock, to infrastructure. The effect on GDP was approximately eight to nine percent of GDP. And unsurprisingly, poverty rose 14 percentage points, which is a big increase. If you see national surveys going around, they have shown that people are having issues with getting access to food. And many people have also had to change their diet, leaving behind some proteins and introducing more carbohydrates or, or foods that are less expensive than proteins, right? And I would leave it there. Yeah. Norbert - This is really important. Thank you for sharing that. Marie, what about you? Marie - Ana really summed it up well, but I would add that it's really important to understand that that these farmers don't have crop insurance to fall back on like farmers in the U.S. So, we're seeing more frequent climate shocks, sometimes years in a row. Droughts and hurricanes. And farmers might be able to borrow seed or money, or to buy inputs to replant the next year, but after consecutive bad harvests, they run out of options and resources and really can't recover. And also keeping in mind that about 60 percent of the food in the region is coming from smallholder farms. And these climate shocks resulting in yield damage have implications for food prices and food security at the regional level, not just at the farm level, right? Sarah - So, Ana and Marie, you do a very nice job laying out the multiple challenges that are facing in urban areas. Turning from that to thinking about adaptations or policy changes that could be successful, can you think of some that might help in decreasing the negative impacts of climate change on farmers, particularly in the Dry Corridor? And, have you seen evidence? Can you bring evidence from your previous work for this to think about pathways forward and whether or not those would be scalable to additional farmers. Marie - So, a focus on land restoration and soil restoration is really key to building climate resilience. As I mentioned, these are areas with really highly degraded soils that are even more susceptible to these climate shocks. So, we're talking about managing the soil to manage water. And I just want to take a moment to explain why soil is so important for climate resilience. A healthy soil will capture and infiltrate more rainwater. These are rain fed systems, depending on every drop that falls. They store more water for plant production and also percolate more water down to recharge groundwater, which has an implication for water availability in the whole area. In a degraded soil, like much of the agricultural land in the Dry Corridor and other parts of the world, soils have lost this function, and the rainwater runs off, it's not captured, it's not stored, and the resulting, the crops grown in that soil are much more susceptible to periods without rain, and there's overall less water availability. When soil and water resources are degraded, agricultural productivity is low, the families are susceptible to climate shocks, and this keeps them in a cycle of emergency and recovery and poverty. The good news is that the ability of soils to capture and store rainwater can be restored with good agricultural practices that build soil organic matter, protect, and protect the soils from erosion. In Catholic Relief Services and in our programs, we call this Water Smart Agriculture Practices. In one of our programs from 2016 to 2020, we monitored a network of farms where we tested these practices with farmers on their farms and side by side plots comparing the water smart agriculture practices with conventional practices. Within that period, a very severe drought in 2018 hit. It affected the whole region and we found that these soils during a very severe drought could store up to 26 percent more moisture during this drought period. And on average yields were 39 percent higher. In a drought year, this can make the difference between a family producing enough food to still meet their household needs or being in an emergency situation and having to rely on food aid. And also, we found it in good years, yields were also much higher because of these good management practices. Meaning that farmers could produce and sell more surplus and improve their income savings. And this also contributes to greater overall resilience. And just to note also that these practices also sequester more carbon in agricultural systems, which also has climate mitigation impacts. Now this alone, soil management alone, is not going to bring farmers out of poverty. We need to build on this foundation of good natural resource management with market access, diversification with more lucrative crops access to financing and, of course, increasing opportunities for women and youth. But all this needs to be built on this foundation of restoring soil and water resources so that we can be successful with these other types of development interventions. We're working to scale these practices in the Dry Corridor by working with a network of partners, including other local NGOs, government agencies. And one of the main limitations is that farmers have is gaining access to any type of agricultural extension services. So, we're really working to strengthen local extension. We're using a hybrid model that combines field training with digital extension tools and radio for mass communication to reach more people. And we know from some of our work and some of the work I'm doing with Sarah and Ana to look at the adoption of these practices, that when farmers do have access to extension services and training, they are in fact applying and adopting the practices. Sarah - Thank you, Marie, for providing the detail about some of the programs that you're seeing and that the evidence, these are evidence-based practices that are actually making a difference for the farmers that you are working with. I want to turn to Ana now and shift the conversation just a little bit. You know, Marie was laying out potential ways to turn things around and ways that life could become better for farmers. But what do you see as some of the consequences of inaction if we don't keep on with these programs and if programs are not scaled up to help smallholder farmers and others in the region. What do you think will be the consequences of that for poverty and food security in Central America? Ana - Sarah, that's a great question. Again, it's hard to give an exact answer on what would be the exact results of this. But there was this one thing that popped into my mind immediately, which is an accelerated flow of people migrating both within the region and towards the U.S. as well. Because people are seeking to escape these harsh living conditions, right? So, food insecurity will get worse, particularly in susceptible areas like the Dry Corridor where farmers are already struggling with this climate unpredictability. Rural families will also face greater challenges in meeting their basic nutritional needs. potentially leading to malnutrition and health crises. And even in urban areas, high prices and food shortage will disproportionately impact the most vulnerable communities, exacerbating inequality. Now, in addition to that, failing to act now will result in a greater cost in the future. And I believe another concerning consequence of inaction is the displacement of young people. And here I must add that right now Honduras has a demographic difference and we're not taking advantage of it. Many young individuals migrate in search of better opportunities, leading to the so-called brain drain. Or they even leave the country without any further motivation to help the country while they're abroad. So, with insufficient opportunities for education, for employment, we are risking youth becoming trapped in cycles of poverty. We're losing people that are capable of helping the country, and this will undermine long term community development and stability. Norbert - Ana, thanks so much for providing that context for the need for action and what consequences of inaction might be. You know, this has been a challenging conversation. We've talked about a number of things that are going wrong or where some of the challenges are. I actually want to turn the conversation to see some ways forward. And so, what are some of the positive changes that can take place? And, you know, Catholic Relief Services is doing some really important work. And I want to hear more about that. But I also want to hear about it in the context of what could happen if policy makers, government officials or decision makers in the international development institutions, if they changed policy or created new opportunities. What would you say are still some really pressing needs and where would you focus money and efforts to get the biggest impact or hope for the most people? Marie? Let's start with you. Marie - I want to emphasize again just the importance of investing in land and soil restoration as a foundation, as a strategy to build climate resilience. Now, we really need programs that are also creating economic opportunities and developing markets for farmers, but this needs to be linked with land restoration initiatives in order to ensure resilience and the sustainability of these activities. You know, when land and soil is restored, these practices aren't just implemented, and they're not just implemented at the farm level, but like over whole landscapes. This improves productivity, but also water availability for households, urban areas, and other activities. So even programs that promote irrigation technologies as a solution for the Dry Corridor, which is really like a way forward also. These need to be linked with the land restoration activities because this water needs to come from somewhere. So, we need to ensure that we're protecting our water resources and ensuring the availability for these other activities, or else we won't be successful. And they also won't be sustainable. We also really need to invest more in capacity-building aspects of our development programming. Not just focusing on asset replacement, which is necessary, but we need a good balance of investing in capacity building. This means farmers, agronomists, agricultural institutes to strengthen the extension systems and improving access to information around soil and climate, for improved decision making and management of these resources in order to also take action to reduce overall risk and climate risk in the area. So really building the capacity in the management practices that can in the long term reduce dependencies on external aid. Norbert - Ana, what about you? Ana- I think Marie summed up everything very well. But if I had to rephrase what she said in my own words, I would focus a lot on infrastructure development. Both physical and digital. This is essential. Investing in better roads, market access, but also digital connectivity would enable the population of farmers and entrepreneurs to reach bigger markets, fostering economic growth and development. And I'll also include improvements to infrastructure to be climate resilient and friendly to the environment. And going along to what she said about capacity development, I would also give focus on improving productive skills. Many companies in the region and especially in Honduras highlight the limited ability of the workforce to generate high value opportunities as a major constraint. So, concrete advances in competitiveness and innovation are needed in this sense. And I would wrap this wish list saying that for any policy to be considered if you want to talk to them to any government official or international organization, there has to be more focus and importance on inclusive policies. They have to engage local communities, they have to engage women, they have to engage youth in decision making processes. Basically, we want to ensure that these groups have voice in policy development. Sarah - Great. Thanks Ana. I want to, you know, turn this attention now to thinking about research. So, Duke is an institution where research is one of our primary functions. And thinking broadly about the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security, where do you see the biggest need for additional research? And maybe to think about in another way which research questions if they were answered could be transformative? And how might academic research and researchers partner with organizations like Catholic Relief Services and others doing work in the field in order to answer some of these questions about practical applications that could help on the ground? And Ana, let's begin with you. Ana - Thank you for your question, Sarah. I would say our work with Catholic Relief Services has given us a lot of ideas on how we can improve in this sense. For instance, we need to understand how different technologies and practices performed in diverse kinds of conditions are crucial. What factors influence farmers' adoption of one technology more than another, considering the heterogeneity of each farmer and each living condition. But I would also be interested in exploring how climate change impacts household dynamics and whether there is a shift in roles. Men and women, right? If there is an increase in women empowerment within the agricultural context once they're exposed to these new technologies. How they make the decision on what to eat, how much to eat, what to produce, what not to produce. And I would say also, and this is my Santa wish list of the things I want to research about as well is understanding their desire to migrate even under these improved conditions. Like even though we're giving them this technology, it's like what is actually keeping these farmers that we are helping stay and keep doing or producing what they're doing in involving improving with time. Sarah - Marie, what about you? Marie - Yes, so from the development organization perspective, collaborations with academic institutes can really provide an opportunity for us to go beyond the scope of the kind of monitoring and learning that we build into our development projects. And bring in different levels of expertise, and research methods. So definitely something that can be beneficial for our programming. I see two main areas that require more research and where, you know, collaborating with academic organizations or institutes could be, could be a benefit. The first is really around the whole biophysical type research on agricultural systems. Practices to accelerate land restoration, drought tolerant crops and varieties to improve resilience to climate and market shocks. And calibrating and applying different tools for decision making around soils and water resources. And then the other area is really research in development. So, what's the effectiveness of our different delivery methods of our programs, our extension models, and strategies for reaching and including women and youth. Understanding the scaling strategy and how we can reach more farmers. And also, translating these results and program impacts into policy recommendations. So really, research that informs our development strategy to ensure that programs are really leading to transformative, sustainable change and improvements in livelihoods and food security and resilience. Norbert - I really do appreciate hearing this. As a researcher, it's, it's so easy to get, sort of, how do I get the next paper in a journal. But what you're talking about are research questions that really move the development efforts forward. That are, sort of, informed by what's happening on the ground to make sure that the work that you all are doing is the work that leads to the best outcomes for the largest number of people. BIOS Marie-Soleil Turmel is the Scientific Advisor for the Catholic Relief Services Water Smart Agriculture Platform in the Latin America and Caribbean Region. She is an Agronomist/Soil Scientist with 15 years of experience conducting research and extension to promote soil health, productivity, and climate resilience of smallholder farming systems in Latin America. Before joining CRS, she worked as a Research Scientist for the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and Bioversity International. Marie holds a Ph.D. in Soil Science from McGill University and an M.Sc. in Agronomy from the University of Manitoba.   Ana Andino is a PhD student in Public Policy with a concentration in Economics at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. Prior to joining Duke, Ana worked on development issues in Honduras with the Inter-American Development Bank and Honduran Ministry of Finance. She is now an integral part of the Duke team collaborating with Catholic Relief Services. Her research interests are in political economy, climate migration, food insecurity, and international development. She holds a Master of Science in local economic development from the London School of Economics. 

Duke professor William A. (Sandy) Darity joins host Manoj Mohanan, interim Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, to discuss his research on the racial wealth gap and its historical roots. They examine the implications of various policy proposals, including reparations and baby bonds, and how these policies might address the persistent disparities between Black and white households. This episode is part of our ongoing series of policy-focused conversations related to the 2024 election

YouTube might seem like an easy way to make money, but hungry algorithms and nasty comments are leading to fatigue and depression. Hannah chats to William from the What in the World team about his pretty successful side hustle as a YouTuber. He explains why more and more content creators are leaving the platform due to “burnout” and the pressure content creators feel under to pander to the algorithm. We also hear from Roly West, a queer British YouTuber specialising in piercings, tattoos and body modifications and Eugoson Quorch, a tech Youtuber from Nigeria.And Robyn Caplan, Assistant Professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, explains how YouTube makes money from its content creators. Instagram: @bbcwhatintheworld WhatsApp: +44 0330 12 33 22 6 Email: whatintheworld@bbc.co.uk Presenter: Hannah Gelbart with William Lee Adams Producers: Kevyah Cardoso, Julia Ross-Roy and Imogen James Editor: Verity Wilde

In this episode we will explore a policy idea that Republicans and Democrats seem to agree upon: expanding the Child Tax Credit. Duke professors Anna Gassman-Pines and Lisa Gennetian join host Manoj Mohanan, interim Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke, to discuss their recent op-ed, "Cash Alone Won't Relieve ‘Surviving' American Families." They delve into the history of the Child Tax Credit and its beneficial yet incomplete impact on working-class American families. The episode is the first in a series of policy-focused conversations related to the 2024 election. Also: welcome to our new host, Manoj Mohanan, interim Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University.

On this week's episode of Tying It Together with Tim Boyum, Tim goes back to school, visiting with Duke University professor Phillip Napoli about the challenges regulating artificial intelligence and the election. Even if regulations are put in place to stop the spread of misinformation, would they be effective? Napoli is the James R. Shepley Professor of Public Policy, Director of the DeWitt Wallace Center for Media & Democracy, and Senior Associate Dean for Faculty and Research for the Sanford School. 

On March 20, the House of Representatives passed the Protecting Americans' Data From Foreign Adversaries Act. The House bill was passed by the Senate on April 23 as part of the larger foreign aid package, which President Biden signed into law on April 24. Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Justin Sherman, Senior Fellow at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, to talk about the benefits and limits of the new legislation, now law. They talked about the path that led to the bill's passage in both the House and Senate, similarities and differences between this new legislation and a recent Executive Order focusing on the preventing the sale of American's bulk sensitive personal data, and some ways the new law could be improved. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. Dawn Boender, an OB/GYN turned reproductive behavioral health fellow, joins Sarah and Whitney to unravel the mystery of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) and how it can turn the tides of emotion for women worldwide. From lifestyle tweaks to the potential of nutritional supplements and the transformative power of therapy, Dr. Dawn paints a vivid picture of the challenges women face when their mental well-being is intertwined with the menstrual cycle. Her compassionate advice offers solace to listeners and empowers them with knowledge and tactics to face PMDD head-on.About Dr. Dawn Boender:Dr. Dawn Boender is a fellow in the Women's Reproductive Behavioral Health Division at The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). Dr. Boender is a board certified OB/GYN. She attended medical school at Sanford School of Medicine in South Dakota, and completed OB/GYN residency through the University of Kansas (KU) Wichita. Her professional interests include treatment of mood and anxiety disorders that are affected by hormonal changes, including the perinatal, menstrual, and perimenopausal time periods. Outside of work she can be found spending time with her husband and four children.Follow Previa Alliance!Previa Alliance (@previa.alliance) • Instagram photos and videosPrevia Alliance Podcast (@previapodcast) • Instagram photos and videosKeep the questions coming by sending them to info@previaalliance.com or DM us on Instagram!

A growing number of research studies show that the cognitive and brain development of low-income children differs from that of children in higher income families. For any family, that is a concerning statement. Today's podcast features a project called Baby's First Years, a multi-year effort to test the connections between poverty reduction and brain development among very young children. Here to talk about what the study has revealed so far is Dr. Lisa Gennetian from Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, and Dr. Sarah Halpern-Meekin from the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Transcript Sarah, let's start with you. What is the Baby's First Years study?  Sarah - So the Baby's First Years study is a study of how having additional income matters for children's development and for family life in families that had incomes around the federal poverty line when they had a child. And so, it includes two main components. The first is a randomized control trial that tests the effects of families receiving either a large or a small monthly cash gift each month, families get either $333 or $20 each month on a debit card from the time their child was born until just after the child's sixth birthday. Lisa and our colleagues, Katherine Magnuson, Kimberly Noble, Greg Duncan, Hiro Yoshikawa, and Nathan Fox lead this part of the study. They've been following mothers and children from a thousand families over the past six years. The other part of the study is a qualitative study in which we do in-depth interviews with a subset of those families because we want to learn more about how they think, about making financial decisions, the values and dreams for their children that guide their parenting and how they think about their money they're getting from Baby's First Years each month. This study is complex and would require time to observe change. Can you tell me about the length of time your team has been doing this intervention? Sarah - So the first families started the study in 2018. Lisa - One thing that's unique about this intervention is its length. As Sarah mentioned, it's starts at the time of birth and it's monthly. And families will be receiving this cash for 76 months. So, they'll be receiving it through the first six years of their child's life. Thank you for that detail. Lisa, what is the landscape for food programs and assistance in the United States, particularly for families with infants and young children? Lisa - There are two major programs that are federally funded in the US that are particularly targeted for families with infants and children. One of them is called the Women, Infant, and Children's Program, or WIC for short. The WIC program, let's see, in 2022, served about 6.3 million participants, but it provides a mix of core nutritional needs, breastfeeding support, information and referrals. And the second big safety net program in the US around food is called SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This one's broader and has served over 40 million people in 2022. And together both these programs have been pretty core to providing food and nutritional support to families, including those with young children. Thanks for that context. So now, how does the cash gift intervention differ from, or fit with other food assistance programs that these families may participate in? Lisa - The thing that cash can add above and beyond that, so thinking about how this Baby's First Year study might help supplement resources is in two ways. One is thinking about how money that might have been spent on the foods that are provided by these programs are now being taken care of through these food subsidies. One direct way that the BFY cash money can help is by increasing those net resources available for other types of food or for other things in the household. It's a real compliment to these what we call in kind or conditioned kind of food subsidy programs. The second is that there are no conditions. And so, what WIC and SNAP provide, which is really formative and really important for a lot of families, is also has some real parameters on what could be purchased. And so having extra cash means sort more flexibility around direct food resources. And that's actually something we start to see a little bit in the Baby's First Year study. Wow, Lisa, thank you for that. Given that these are means-tested programs, the cash infusion from Baby's First Year's project could influence participants' eligibility for other programs, right? How did you deal with that? Lisa - Oh yes, it's a really great question. Thanks for asking that. For the purposes of this study, we, for several years, worked closely with all layers of government, federal, state, and local to think hard about how to protect the families receiving this cash gift from losing eligibility for these other programs because as you say, right, we're increasing their income implicitly through this cash gift. And so, we did that through some administrative rulings, meaning states agreed that the families would be exempt and to the states, we had legislation passed to protect these families from their eligibility being affected by receipt of the cash gift. We did that as comprehensively as possible. There are some exceptions, but we think that it's been pretty effective kind of strategy we use to ensure that families, when they get this cash gift, that they're not mechanically losing eligibility for these other programs. So, the way to think about this cash and supplementing people's lives and supplementing and accompanying everything else, is also helping how families might think about access to these other programs and choices around that in ways that they might not have had before. That sounds like a large undertaking, and it took extensive planning to get to that point. I imagine you wouldn't want families to lose their benefits because they participated in this study. Sarah, I want to come back to you. What are families' experiences with Baby's First Year and with government-provided food assistance programs in the United States? Sarah - So families in both gift groups are appreciative of having extra money every month. That's even more so the case for those in the high gift group mothers not surprisingly, some mothers in Baby's First Year struggle to make ends meet, for others, even if they can cover their bills every month, having just that little bit extra breathing room is pretty welcome. Like Lisa was talking about across the country, in Baby's First Years, the vast majority of families have experience with food assistance programs, either currently or in the past. It's pretty rare for them not to, relatively speaking, while families often receive WIC, that's the Women, Infants and Children program that Lisa mentioned, when they have babies, many stop getting WIC after their babies turn one, despite the fact that they remain income eligible for that. Most families also receive some benefits from SNAP. And in some qualitative work that I did with my colleagues, Carolyn Barnes and Jill Hoiding, we heard from families about how they thought about engaging with the WIC program. They thought about the value of the benefits they could get from doing so, but also the costs of doing that, like how hard it is to make it to appointments, to fill out the paperwork to use those benefits once you're at the grocery store. And they weighed those costs and benefits as their children grew up when they were thinking about whether or not to pursue those benefits. So Lisa, what are you learning from the Baby's First Year study about where and how families and children are getting food? Lisa - So Sarah has talked about the richness of speaking to moms directly at holistic types of interviews. Alongside that, we've annually been going back and speaking to mothers and collecting information about them and their children. And part of our, so these are our annual surveys, they are in or near the children's birthdate, and we ask them a bunch of questions about how life is going, about their spending, what's happening with income and employment and childcare, their own health, their mental health. One of the areas that we focus on is around food. And one of those food items is called a food security scale. This is a six item, a USDA-approved scale. It asks questions like not having enough money to buy food, questions about hunger, questions about eating balanced meals. It includes a set of items that we would call pretty subjective. For example, the question on balanced meals, but also less subjective. Is there literally enough money to buy enough food for the household? And so, we're learning some really interesting things. First, we're learning that there is very high connection to this food safety net that we were just talking about. So, far majority of the families are connected either to WIC or the food assistance program called SNAP. And that's pretty consistent. Sarah just talked about a little bit of the drop off of WIC, but we certainly see consistent connections to SNAP, all the way through the first three years of the child's life. We see that generally as sort of a kind of good news story. So, these are families who are eligible for these programs, their family's drawn from four very different dates and sites. They're very diverse in their racial ethnic composition and whether they've been born or not in the US in terms of the moms. The fact that there is very high connection to a food safety net system while raising young children, we think is a really positive signal of the food safety net system potentially working pretty well. And then we're not seeing big differences between the high cash gift group and the low cash gift group on this food security measure. In fact, we're seeing pretty high food security amongst these families with very young children on the scale. That doesn't mean that any one of these items, we're not seeing high reports of things like scarcity. So even though the families are very low in food insecurity, we do see that about a third of them are reporting some kind of food scarcity. So, 31% report that the food they bought did not last and they sometimes often didn't have money to get more. For example, we're also hearing from families, they're relying on free meals from non-federal sources. We haven't talked yet about the importance of the faith-based kind of system and support and informal networks in providing food. We ask families this when their children were about three years old, and roughly 10% report some receipt of free meals from other sources. We are inevitably also seeing, as you might expect, some variation across these sites. So that's sort of a hint on what we're seeing around food security and connections to the safety net. We also ask about spending, and we're not seeing overall differences in how much money is being spent on food with one very interesting exception. That's on money, on food spent eating out. We don't ask a whole bunch of information about nutrition, but when the children were toddlers, moms do report, who are receiving the high cash gift, they do report higher consumption of fruits and vegetables among their toddlers. It is a very sort of unique and narrow question, but positive, so more fruits and vegetables and not more of other things like salty treats, flavored drinks, sodas, sugary sweets. And we're looking forward to continuing to follow up on items of nutrition when the children are four. This is fascinating, and I'm so grateful that your team is paying attention to these families' experiences and engagement with the social safety net and the charitable food sector. Sarah, we often understand food, particularly healthy food, as a way to deliver nutrition that promotes health and development. Of course, food provides much more than nutrition. What, if anything, are you learning from the study about the social meaning of food and what it represents to families? Sarah - I really appreciate this question because it's something we've been looking at and thinking about a lot in our research, in the research other people have done before, and in our own study we really hear a lot about the role that food plays in families, beyond nutrition. In so many cultures, food plays a really core role in social time and in family time. This can be things like turning family movie night into something a little more special by microwaving popcorn. It can be having special mom and me time with mom taking a child out to go get a cake pop at a coffee shop. It can be eating a meal at a sit-down restaurant to celebrate a special occasion, a child's middle school graduation, for some of these purchases, you can't use food assistance. And so having cash on hand is really essential to engaging in these kinds of special rituals and family time. Like your question implies, it turns our attention to the role that food plays in family bonding and in socializing. We really want to think about the multiple roles that food serves in our lives and how having this kind of extra income on hand for families who are often income constrained, can change these opportunities for those special family times around food.   Bios   Dr. Lisa Gennetian is an applied economist, Professor of Public Policy, and the Pritzker Professor of Early Learning Policy Studies at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. Drawing on perspectives from the behavioral sciences, psychology, and child development, her research focuses on the economics of child development, specifically child poverty, parent engagement and decision making, and policy and social investment considerations. Dr. Sarah Halpern-Meekin is Vaughn Bascom Professor of Children, Family, and Community in the School of Human Ecology and the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is also an affiliate of the Institute for Research on Poverty. She is a sociologist whose research focuses on family, adolescence, social policy and the welfare state, class and inequality, and qualitative methods. Her current research includes examining the role of parents' churning (on-again/off-again) relationships in family life, exploring the experiences and financial decision-making of mothers who are receiving monthly unconditional cash gifts, and understanding how rural men make ends meet, spend their time, and make meaning while disconnected from the formal labor force.

In 2016, President Barack Obama awarded her the National Humanities Medal for "championing the stories of an unsung history." A conversation with Isabel Wilkerson. --- Isabel Wilkerson, an esteemed American journalist and author, visited the Duke Sanford School of Public Policy recently to meet with students and present the 2024 Terry Sanford Lecture. Born in Washington, D.C., and a graduate of Howard University, Wilkerson's career in journalism included notable positions at The New York Times, recognized with the Pulitzer Prize in 1994, becoming the first woman of African-American heritage to win the award in journalism. Her debut book, “The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration,” garnered widespread acclaim for its exploration of the mass migration of African Americans from the South to the North and West. This seminal work earned her numerous awards and established her as a leading voice on social justice in America. In her latest book, “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” Wilkerson delves into the concept of caste systems and their enduring influence on American society. Drawing parallels between the caste systems of India, Nazi Germany, and the United States, the book offers profound insights into the structural inequalities and systemic injustices that persist in contemporary America. She talks with Judith Kelley, dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University.

The White House issued an executive order recently that takes on data brokers who might try to sell sensitive personal information on Americans to foreign adversaries like China and Russia. A recent study by Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy demonstrated how intelligence agencies might buy personal information on American soldiers, or diplomats, or politicians, and perhaps use it for blackmail or strategic advantage. Justin Sherman, an adjunct professor at Duke, led the study, and he is today's guest.

On Feb. 13, Senator Ron Wyden released a letter documenting an investigation his office has been conducting into the activities of Near Intelligence Inc., a data broker that allegedly enabled an anti-abortion organization to target anti-abortion messaging and ads to people visiting 600 Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States. Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Justin Sherman, CEO of Global Cyber Strategies and a Senior Fellow at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, to discuss this investigation. They talked about the various players in the data broker ecosystem that enable these invasive practices, the lack of federal legislation governing and preventing these activities, and what actions the FTC might be able to take against Near Intelligence Inc. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“In 2018, Gallup recorded that some 74% of Americans said they had 'a great deal' or 'quite a lot' of confidence in the military; in 2023, that number had dropped to 60%.  That is still high compared to other governmental institutions, but it is a marked decline.” – Peter Feaver Peter Feaver is a professor at Duke University, where he runs the Program in American Grand Strategy. He talks with Judith Kelley, Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy about his new book, Thanks for Your Service: The Causes and Consequences of Public Confidence in the US Military. Note: this conversation took place in late October, 2023. Transcript & resources

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with location data broker X-Mode Social. X-Mode collects over 10 billion location data points from all over the world every day, and sells it to clients in a range of industries, like advertisers, consulting firms, and private government contractors. The FTC argued that the data broker was conducting unfair business practices, including selling people's sensitive location data.To discuss the FTC settlement and its implications, Lawfare's Fellow in Technology Policy and Law Eugenia Lostri sat down with Justin Sherman, Founder and CEO of Global Cyber Strategies and a Senior Fellow at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. They talked about the FTC's groundbreaking decision to list sensitive locations about which X-Mode cannot sell data, the likelihood that we will see further FTC action against data brokers, and the persistent need for comprehensive privacy legislation to better address harms.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our guest today is Jasmine Crowe-Houston, social entrepreneur, and founder of Goodr.co. Jasmine started her journey cooking soul food for hungry unhoused people in her kitchen in her one-bedroom apartment in Atlanta. She fed upwards of 500 people a week for years with pop-up kitchens and parks and parking lots. Then in 2017, she founded Goodr, a technology-based food waste management company that connects firms with food surpluses to nonprofit organizations that can use the food. She has worked with organizations that have food waste issues, such as the Atlanta International Airport, Hormel Foods, and Turner Broadcasting. Today, Goodr has expanded nationwide and sponsors free grocery stores and schools. She has combined charity, innovation, and market-based solutions into a for-profit waste management company that Inc. Magazine called a rare triple win.  This episode is in collaboration with Policy360, a podcast of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Interview Summary   Would you describe what Goodr is today?   Goodr is a blessing. We are a sustainable food waste management company that leverages technology to connect businesses that have excess food to non-profit organizations that can use that food. And at the same time, we have a line of business, which is Hunger Solutions, and we're helping brands and government and other municipalities rethink how hunger is solved in their communities. We believe that hunger is not an issue of scarcity. It's really a matter of logistics. And so, we are using technology and logistics to drive out hunger and food waste. We've built technology that includes our mobile app and portal. Imagine you are using an Uber Eats or DoorDash app. You go onto your favorite restaurant; you click the item that you want. Similar experience for our users. So, for example, a restaurant in the airport. Their menu is in our system. They click chicken sandwich; they tell us 50. Our platform is going to calculate the tax value of those sandwiches, the approximate weight of those sandwiches, and our algorithm is automatically matching those sandwiches with the non-profit that is serving 50 or more people that can take those items and then get it distributed to people in need. Another big thing that our technology is capturing is the poundage that we're keeping out a landfill. So, it's really important because we're able to tell our clients we have kept 2 million pounds of food from landfills. This is equal to this much CO2 emissions that you've helped to prevent. We do a lot of fun gamifications as well, but we're data-driven and we believe that you can't manage what you don't measure. And for too long, people have thrown everything away. They've never measured it. And now we're giving them real insights and they're seeing things like, wow, my number one wasted thing is pork. Why am I making pork so much? Maybe people here at our offices don't eat pork. Start to make changes. So, we really work on the source reduction, but the number two on the EPA is the food hierarchy chart is feeding hungry people. And so that's really where we are.   Wow, that's amazing. I want to ask because I've seen this in the food waste and food donation world, that sometimes food that's donated isn't appropriate or fit for human consumption. What happens to those food products?   Traditionally, they end up in landfills. One of the big things that we have to do at Goodr, and I'll tell you too, that change is by county. So, think of not by city, not by state. Wake County and Durham County probably have different rules because it's based off the health department in each city. So, a good example is when we were working in Florida, what we do in Miami is absolutely illegal in Fort Lauderdale. They're 10 minutes away from each other. Broward County and Dade County have different rules. So, we spend a lot of time, our R&D team, creating quality assurance checklists. And we know this food is going to live for three hours. So, you've got to get this either cooled, frozen, or donated within three hours. So, we tell our businesses that. We are moving food in an average of about 30 minutes from the time it gets picked up. Some of our customers will put in their pickup requests and ask that it's picked up the next morning. So, they're going to automatically put it in their refrigerator. That's their comfort level. They feel a lot better. It makes the food last longer and they don't always have to worry about it being fresh. A lot of the time when we're dealing with weddings, really big events, that's when we have to move right away because maybe that business doesn't have access to the kitchen the next day. And so, we need to move a little bit differently. Most of the time when a business has food that's passed that timeframe, they typically do throw it away. But what we've done is we've introduced organics recycling into our fold. So, our customers now have the ability to send that to an animal farm. We can also send it to an anaerobic digester and turn it into an organic product, or we can compost it. We're still keeping it out of landfill. It doesn't have to end up in landfill ever. That's the positive.   Yeah, that's amazing. I saw your 2019 Ted women talk entitled "What We're Getting Wrong in The Fight to End Hunger". And it has been viewed by more than 2.2 million times.   Wow. Yeah, it's so good. I didn't know if you gave me those last million, but that's good to know.   Good job! No, it was over that by the time I got to it, but it's really amazing and I'm just intrigued to get your opinion about why do you think people are interested in solving hunger and food waste?   I think people are questioning why it hasn't been solved yet. It's almost like it's not as big as cancer, right? But it's as big as cancer. Cancer's big, it kills people, right? But we spend a lot of money and there's a lot of research and we feel like we're getting closer to the fight. I don't know if people feel that we're getting closer to the fight as it relates to hunger. And if you think about it, Norbert, when me and you were kids, we probably did a canned food drive. Anybody that's listening right now is probably thinking, "I did some kind of a food drive when I was in elementary school to solve hunger in our communities." Why are we still doing that? Why are we still doing the same things? I always look at it as being the definition of insanity, right? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I think that's what people are interested in. What are we getting wrong? Why is my kid, 35 years later, why am I still doing canned food drives for my kindergarten kid and this is something that I did in kindergarten? And is this moving the needle? Is this really working? People want to know that. People want to know are we pacifying problems or is the money that we're putting behind these actually driving solutions and should we look at something else that's different? Even with my TED Talk, I remember the first week it came out, we got a lot of, "Oh, you're talking negatively about food banks, and they do great work and I volunteer at the food bank every weekend." There's a whole section in my TED Talk where I say food banks and food pantries are vital. They play a pivotal role, but they don't solve hunger alone, and we need to be open to doing new things. We're using technology in every other area of our lives. I mean, we're getting our groceries delivered, we're meeting our spouses, we're going to college. Why are we not using technology to try and solve a big problem like hunger and food waste? And so, it's just getting people open. I think that's what people are interested in finding a solution.   I'm really intrigued by the model of Goodr, the fact that it is a for-profit company. What's also interesting is given all the success that you've had up to this point, it's hard to believe now that investors hesitated to support you.   Yeah, shame on those investors, I would say. I'll tell you, Norbert, the sad thing is, right, any woman listening should know this. Women as a whole get 2% of all venture capital funding from investors as a whole. So, you take a pie and then you take 2%, and now of that 2%, you have women that are Asian, women that are Black, women that are Hispanic, women that are White. We're all taking a piece of that small 2%. So, there's part of that. I think another thing is it's hard to sometimes get conviction around that, which you don't understand. And a lot of investors, quite frankly, have never been hungry, you know? They don't really understand food waste. It's probably not... It's not AI, it's not blockchain, it's not crypto. It's not always in the headlines. It's not the cool thing. So, I think those all played a factor in it. I think that's just the reality. Investors like to invest in things that they can get excited about, and sometimes hunger and food waste just are not exciting. I also think a lot of people felt like this is so good, they should be a nonprofit. And for me, I saw the business case in what we were building right away because businesses were already paying to throw food away. That's the simple thing about it. So why would I create a nonprofit and must ask everyday people to donate so that we can get this food picked up, have to rely on volunteers that may or may not come, which possibly would cause more food to go to waste. Because if you're being paid to pick something up, you're being paid to do something, you're 99% more likely to go, right? If you're volunteering and it's raining, you may not go that day. It doesn't matter how much you care about the cause. You may not want to get in your car, you may not like to drive in the rain. Those are the things that happen. And so I also believe that businesses would value what they pay for. So, if you're investing and you're paying in a service to divert your food waste from landfill, you're more likely to make sure that your employees are actually packaging that food, recording it for donations, scheduling pickups, than you would be if it was just a free thing, and it was a nice to do. I think that was kind of like we needed to prove that, and now we've proven. We have world-class customers. We work with... You name some of them. And I mean, we've worked with everybody from the NBA to Google to Oracle, Nike World Headquarters. These are our customers, you know? People have now seen that this works. One of our biggest customers, they sent over a testimonial the other day and it says, "All the other locations are banging down my door to try and get Goodr." People just needed to give it a try. And so now hopefully when we have those investor conversations the next go around, this market's a little crazy, but hopefully we'll have a bit more willingness to give our solution a try. And there have been great investors who have made an investment in what we're doing.   Right. Thank you for sharing that. And we're at a university and we have a lot of young people who are excited about social entrepreneurship. What can you say to them to encourage them along this path?   I could say to them that they are needed. We were talking about my goal of wanting to be a professor one day, and what I want to talk about is social entrepreneurship and this model of being able to do well by doing good. That there is a way to do that in business and that it ultimately works. And we've seen the big companies that I think are pretty keen and they've seen success for are your Warby Parkers, your Patagonias. These are other B Corps, Goodr is a B Corp as well, who are kind of existing. The first model I ever saw of social entrepreneurship was Toms Shoes. They were really popular maybe 15 years ago, maybe not as much now, but there was a point when it was like, I'm going to buy a shoe and give a shoe. Bombas, the sock and undergarment company, the same thing. They're supporting homelessness. You buy a sock, you're giving a sock, you buy a T-shirt, you're giving a T-shirt. People love to do good. And so, these students that are interested in creating ways and solutions to solve some of our biggest problems, are needed now more than ever. I mean, this world is... I read an article the other day talking about all that millennials have lived through. And I was thinking to myself, goodness gracious, I've lived through a lot, two recessions, a couple of wars, a pandemic, just like everything, technology. I mean, that's the reality of it. I don't recall a smart cell phone when I was in high school and college. That was... I think the iPhone came out maybe in 2008, 2009. I graduated college by then. I didn't have that. Facebook wasn't around until 2008. You start to see what's happening to young people now because of social media, their self-esteem, the anxiety. There are so many things that we need people to be addressing because we're creating a lot more technology, but we're also creating a lot more problems, and they need to be solved.   They do. And it is interesting to think about the anxiety that's associated with some of these issues.   Oh yes.   And the fact that Goodr is trying to address food waste, which is a contributor climate change, I mean, you're providing a solution. And this is great and it helps me think that our students can start to think differently about what they can do to help address these issues.   The Project Drawdown, which is pretty much a leading climate solutions organization, they named, in 2022, food waste. Reducing our food waste is number two after fixing our energy grid. Number two thing that we could do to combat climate change is to reduce our food waste. In America, nearly 2% of GDP has been on food we never eat, which is just insane to think about. 2% of everything that we spend is on food we never eat, from production to transportation to the disposal. And so even around the food waste chain, there's still a lot more solutions that are needed. So even if that's going to be what we're producing at the farm level, what's going to waste? What can we do with it? Can we reuse it? Can we turn things into other products? I was reading an article recently about there's a new kind of leather that's going to be... It's already kind of on some runways, but it's made out of banana peels. That's a social entrepreneur that thought of that.   I love the fact that you're so welcoming and you're trying to bring people in. And that brings up the book that you've published recently, "Everybody Eats," and it's there to inspire young people in the fight against hunger. It is beautiful. And I see my daughter in this text and so I'm really appreciative of it. And it was illustrated by Nadia Fisher. And there is also a website with resources for parents and kids and teachers. What do you want to accomplish with this outreach effort?   I am often asked, will I solve hunger in my lifetime? I want to say yes, but I have to think possibly not. Hunger grows every single year. I mean, there's a new study I just was reading that it was in the Washington Post two days ago. It's increased 12%. Childhood poverty is up 20%. So sometimes I'm going, or you make the shot, we're at Duke, right? This is a basketball place. So, you make this shot and you can't keep your hand there because the team is already down, the other team's already on the other side of the court. That's often how I feel about hunger. It's like I do something that's really good. It's monumental. We've got grocery stores in schools, we're feeding students, and then I read that childhood poverty is up 20%. How do I leave a legacy that really focuses on solving hunger? I need to inform the next generation and I need to do it in a way, and how I wrote that book is really my story in the eyes of a kid. Me learning that one of my friends, my college roommate did not have food in her household, and that shaping my whole life. And now thinking like your daughter, what would she come back and tell you if she learned that a friend of hers at school doesn't have food in her kitchen like you have food in your kitchen? And they ask questions, and they want to understand that. She goes on this journey asking grocery stores and her school like, "Hey, what's going on with this food? People are going hungry. My friend at school doesn't have access to food," and she's trying to help her friend. And the reality is just like with my friend and the young protagonist in the book, her father just lost the job. I mean, so many people read these stories. I think the most recent article I saw said something like 75% of Americans are living... Are one paycheck away, just one paycheck away. And to see that, that happened to my friend, and it's the most jarring thing that has ever happened to me, probably in life. Because I had a completely different picture in my mind of what hunger looked like until that happened to me. And this happened to me probably three years into feeding people that were experiencing homelessness on the street. I've been feeding people for over a decade of my life. To learn that someone who had volunteered with me, someone who had been out feeding people with me, that they too wouldn't have food in their home, it changed my whole life and my life story. I use all the proceeds from the book to fund a Neighborhood Eats program where I feed kids on the weekends, and I know that I'm making an impact in the lives of children. And they will. My hope is in 15, 20 years, you'll be sitting here talking to someone else who's doing something around this. That's the goal.   You've touched on this, but I just want to push it a little bit further. Food waste and hunger are longstanding challenges and they touch people all along the supply chain. How do you manage the complexity of this problem?   Yeah, I think we have to continue to focus on the verticals that we're really good at because it is big. You'll probably think I'm lying to you, Norbert. I may get a hundred phone calls and emails a week. "Hey, we need Goodr here. We want it... How can I bring this here? Can I bring this to my community? I need food. My senior home needs food. The trailer park that we live in, a lot of us are... It's rural. We're not near a grocery store." I look at myself as trying... I think it's like hero overload. I'm trying to solve all this. How do I get to Canada? Oh, someone just called me from Denmark. How do we go to Denmark? How do we get here? I think what I have to really focus on is US first. I do really well with large scale venues, colleges and universities, enterprise corporate cafeterias, stadiums and arenas, airports, convention centers, places where there's a lot of food in one location. A lot of people wonder, why don't you go to small restaurants? We get calls from, "Hey, we have a deli in Long Island, New York," And we're like, "Hey, we're not there yet, but here's our resource guide for how you can donate food. Here's organizations that you can look for in your community. Here are ways you can create your own food donation programs." We try and give them resources to still solve the problem while realizing that we can't do it all ourselves. And I could tell you as an entrepreneur and as a social entrepreneur, that's the hardest thing ever. Because at first, when I first started Goodr, I'm very happy people in Canada didn't call me then because I probably would've been from Atlanta to Vancouver, and just missing a whole other part of the process. But you've got to follow the process and you've got to get really good at something and then drill in and just become the best at it. The best in class. And that's what we... When we have our all-hands meetings and our team retreats, we talk about what are we the best at? And we also say are there things that we're doing that we're not good at? And to your point, that's why I said I'm inviting other people in, right? Because I know that there's other use cases. We don't work with grocery stores. That's something that's really fascinating to a lot of people. I spent probably the first six months of customer discovery, when I was really trying to figure out who are going to be the Goodr customers that we're going to pitch to of working with trying to work with grocery stores. And what I learned is the two largest grocers in the country created and kind of funded Feeding America. There's a strong system there. I was like, okay, they've got that. Now I'm still trying to work with them on prepared foods. That's my hope with the grocery stores now is those rotisserie chickens, those are the things that don't get donated and so that's what we're really trying to focus on. But the shelf stable things, the produce items, they have a strong solution for that. And it took me six months of trying and hitting roadblocks to see that sometimes people don't want to change what they feel like they've focused on. I had to go and say, okay, well where's the food not going? Where's it missing? And I realized it was prepared foods. And that's why I'm really trying to stay on those rotisserie chickens at these grocery stores, because I think if a parent can get a rotisserie chicken, you could pull some other things together. The meat is kind of what you really need.   So how do you stay inspired?   I try and keep my eye on the prize. I got an email from a lady and her name was Bertha, so I've assumed that she was a senior. Her email said to me, Norman, "I just want to thank you guys for your food today. When I got home, my meat wasn't brown. It was fresh and everything was good. And it came from good stores, I could tell it was quality." And I'll never forget that because I thought just imagine, she's saying I got meat that's fresh. That's her thing. I'm hungry. I'm getting food from your organization and it's good, and I'm shocked by that. So shocked that I needed to send an email to say, "Hey, when I got home today, you gave me something that was good." So that's the stuff that I think keeps me going. I got another email from a lady; this is when we were doing a lot of work. We did a ton of work around hunger during the pandemic if you can imagine. And her email was just like, "I was sitting on my porch, my kids were sleeping, they were napping. And my only thought was what am I going to feed these kids when they wake up? because they're going to wake up hungry. Kids ask me for snacks. We're running low, we don't have anything. And I get a call from a driver named Jarvis who says, 'I'm around the corner. This is Goodr. I've got this food delivery.' And not only did he bring a box of food for my family, but he also brought me a pizza that was warm." because we had... I think Papa John's at the time was giving us pizzas, this is heavy in the heat of the pandemic, to deliver boxes of food that we were bringing to families. And she was just like, "This was a godsend." And she said that we gave her hope in her darkest hour, and I'll never forget that. Those are two emails, and I think both of those emails are from 2020, 2021, that still are in my head today. I think about that as a guiding light to continue to keep going and just knowing that we are really making change.   Bio   Jasmine Crowe-Houston is the creator of Goodr, a tech-enabled sustainable food waste management company that strives to eliminate hunger and save food from landfills. Through her years of work feeding vulnerable populations, Jasmine saw a great opportunity for technology to solve a real problem: hunger. In January 2017, Jasmine founded Goodr, a food management platform that allows users in the food industry to track and redirect surplus food. She's a proud alumna of North Carolina Central University. A resident of Atlanta, Georgia, she enjoys spending time with her family and friends and being a new mom to her daughter Journey. She is an avid traveler who has visited more than 30 countries. Jasmine sits on several nonprofit boards and continues to use her time for good. She was named by Entrepreneur Magazine as one of the top 100 influential female founders and recognized on the Black Enterprise 40 Under 40 List.  

 As the parent of a 12-year-old child, I know that raising a child is one of the most profound and rewarding experiences of a person's life. It is also shockingly expensive. The high cost of child rearing is particularly difficult for families with limited resources. To help us think through this issue, it is my great pleasure to welcome a colleague here at Duke: Dr. Christina Gibson-Davis, Professor of Public Policy. Christina studies economic inequality, and particularly how it affects families with children. Interview Summary So, let's do a bit of level setting. We often hear words like poverty and wellbeing. For our conversation today, what is poverty in the US and what do we mean by wellbeing? In the US we have a definition of poverty that relies on a certain threshold. Every year the US government publishes a set of thresholds for families that say - if you are below this threshold, then you are poor. If you're above this threshold, then you're not poor. The thresholds are actually based on data from 1963, when the federal government decided it really needed a way to count the number of poor people in this country. Prior to 1963, we really didn't have any way to do that. They looked at how much money people spent on food, and from that number, they derived these poverty thresholds. In 2022, the poverty threshold for a family of four, just to give your listeners some idea, was about $22,000. This means that if you earned $21,999, you were considered poor. But if you earned $22,001, you weren't considered poor. That's what I mean about the threshold and about falling either above or below that threshold in order to determine whether or not you're poor. Thank you, Christina, that's really helpful. It is interesting that the measure of poverty really is centering on food, or at least traditionally has. We'll get back to that in a moment. I want to go back to the question of wellbeing. Could you tell our listeners what you're talking about when you talk about wellbeing? When we talk about wellbeing, we mean things like how healthy kids are, or how they get along with peers, or how they do in school. Basically, it's the way we measure how kids are functioning and whether they're functioning to the best of their ability. It sounds like it's a broad notion that represents all the ways a child is a child, how they move in this world. That's exactly right. It's going to cover a whole bunch of different areas. Everything from health and education to social relationships, to behavior, to delinquency, to how far they get in school. All of that goes into our definition of wellbeing. Great. Thank you for that. I want to now focus a little bit more on children themselves. What does childhood poverty look like in the US? We can have a technical definition of poverty, which is what I alluded to before, but really, that technical definition I don't think paints a very illustrative portrait of what it looks like to be poor in the US. To be poor in the US as a kid means you're growing up in an environment with very low levels of economic resources. You're probably growing up in a household where you're not sure if those economic resources are going to be enough for your family to maintain their home or pay their bills or get enough food. It's a very sort of unstable situation for kids because they may be worried that their parents just don't have enough money. It also sort of affects the kids' outlooks. We know that poor kids tend to have sort of lower aspirations or hopes for the future. Not that they're not hopeful, but they sort of also know that some of the things that they see may be depicted on TV that are open to other kids may not be an option for them; because they simply don't see a path between where they are and how they're going to get there. That is actually pretty sobering. I'd like for you to explain something about households with children, and I noticed that a lot of our conversation is going to not focus on an individual child but about children in household context. So, how does poverty look different for households with children than households without children? Is there a difference? Yes, there's a difference in poverty rates. One of the things that distinguishes poverty in the United States relative to poverty in other Western or developed countries is that we have very, very high rates of child poverty. And one of the biggest risk factors, in fact, for being poor in the United States is being a kid. Kids tend to have higher poverty rates than other groups. Why is that? Well, obviously kids aren't out making money. They're relying on their parents for their financial wellbeing. But it really has to do with the public policy choices that we've made. Your listeners have probably heard of Social Security and Medicaid, and those are two huge programs that make huge differences in the lives of say, people over the age of 65. We really don't have those kinds of corollaries for kids who are poor. And so, when you look at our policy priorities over the past, say half century, they've really been oriented more towards elderly people rather than kids. That's just a policy choice that we have made. Thank you for sharing that. I know in some of the work that you've done, you've also looked at these issues through an equity lens. Can you tell us a little bit more about the wealth inequalities of households with children. And how does that work shape how we should look at child wellbeing? We've been talking up until this point primarily about income, which for most people is the money that they earn through their job. We think about income as the money that flows into your house. There's also this really important concept, which is called wealth. Wealth is a household's assets minus its debts. So, for most households, their primary asset is their house. And then they might have debts because they owe money on their house, or they have medical loans or education loans or things like that. So, wealth in the US is distributed far more unequally than income. In particular, the racial gaps in wealth are staggering. So, in the US, for every dollar of wealth that is held by a white family with children, a black family has less than 1 cent. Again, that's a $1 to less than 1 cent ratio. When you have those kinds of inequities, it's really hard for some families to make a difference in the lives of their kids. We know that wealth really helps, for example, for kids to go to college or to make a successful transition to young adulthood. And when we have these kinds of race-based inequities, it really hampers some of these kids from realizing their full potential. I know we have a number of colleagues like Sandy Darity who work on this racial wealth gap. So, this is a critical topic that has influence on how we need to think about these issues. And that's going to connect a topic that I have worked on, and that's a great interest of our center. It's the topic of food insecurity. Christina, can you help connect childhood poverty to food insecurity? Food insecurity, as many of your listeners may know, is the ability to have enough food for a healthy, active lifestyle. Not surprisingly, being poor puts you at increased risk of being food insecure. It's probably the predominant risk factor for being food insecure. The reason we care about that is because we know that food insecurity has all kinds of detrimental consequences for children. So, we were talking earlier about wellbeing covering a wide range of outcomes. Food insecurity really diminishes kids' wellbeing in many of those areas that we were talking about. Kids who are food insecure are less healthy, they do less well in school, they may have more behavior problems. So, food insecurity is really something that can undermine the life chances of children. I'm interested in now turning our focus to this issue of policy. We're at a policy school and I would like for you to talk a bit about what our current policies are for addressing food insecurity. For children, there are a number of food programs in the US. I would say the three most relevant ones for children are SNAP or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Benefits, and WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women and Children. And then there is a free and reduced lunch program. Those programs together really try to address food insufficiency among children. The evidence suggests that they work pretty well. None of them by themselves are going to reduce all food insecurity among kids, but they definitely lessen the levels of food insecurity that kids experience.  There was an article in the "New York Times" about a year ago, the Fall of 2022, and it talked about readjustments to the measure of poverty, and they followed the family out of West Virginia. One of the things they did was they looked at the income that this family received, and it showed that 25% of the total, if you will, resources that came into this family were food-based programs, WIC, SNAP, and School Lunch Program. So, it's an important part of how families with limited resources are able to meet some of their needs. I'm appreciative of you sharing that. I think it's absolutely vital, particularly when you think about families that may be living in places with really high rents. There's been a lot of talk lately about how the cost of housing has gone up, and really these sources of food assistance that they get from the government is just absolutely critical to helping them meet the basic needs of their families. So absolutely, these food assistance programs are just a linchpin of how these families survive. It's interesting now that we're in this moment of debating the Farm Bill, which is the federal program that supports SNAP, how it's important for us to keep in mind that beneficiary of the SNAP program are children and children whose wellbeing can be affected by a program like this. I'm grateful for this conversation. Now, how effective are these policies at reducing food insecurity and addressing child wellbeing? These programs work fairly well. They're not, I would say, large enough or convey enough resources to eradicate levels of food insecurity. I think it's also important for your listeners to know that there is no such thing as a federal food policy. So, we let states set the limits, for example, as to how much they're going to spend on SNAP. This leads to large variations in like the SNAP limits. So, for example, if you live in New York, you get about $100 more in SNAP benefits than if you live in Oklahoma. So, what does this mean? It means that these programs are going to be more effective in some states than in others, simply because of the amount of resources that people may get based on where they live. As we wrap up, I wonder if you have any other points of consideration about policy and how policies that we currently have can actually help us address child wellbeing more effectively. One of the other things that distinguishes the US food policy landscape, if you will, is we also have a relatively large private sector. So, people may be familiar with food banks or other places where they distribute food. And, you know, that's sort of the best and the worst that America has to offer, right? The best is that charitable organizations recognize the importance of providing food for people. And these organizations are very effective at providing meals and groceries, and it's a really important source for these families. But I say it's also the worst because there's a giant need for these private sector places. And because the provision of these private sector food goods can vary depending on where you live or how much money the nonprofit organization has, it can be a very variable source of support for food. So, in some ways, our food policy landscape is kind of a crapshoot, if you will. And that I think that makes it hard for us really to get a handle on childhood food insecurity. Bio Christina M. Gibson-Davis is a professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, with a secondary appointment in sociology. Her research interests center around social and economic differences in family formation patterns. Her current research focuses on the how divergent patterns of family formation affect economic inequality.  

On this episode of Horns of Dilemma, Sheena Greitens moderated a panel discussion about the Russo-Ukrainian war and broader challenges to European security. The conversation featured Gen. Vince Brooks, U.S. Army ( Ret.), former Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces Korea; Susan Colbourn, associate director of the Program in American Grand Strategy, Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University; Simon Miles, assistant professor, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University; and Mark Pomar, Senior National Security Fellow, Clements Center for National Security. The group discussed the challenges the Ukrainian military faces, the risks of nuclear escalation, and the longer-term implications of the war for regional and global security.

On November 6, researchers at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy issued a report on “Data Brokers and the Sale of Data on U.S. Military Personnel” that illuminates the national security risks arising from the sale of these data. Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with the three of the report's authors: Justin Sherman, a Senior Fellow at the Sanford School of Public Policy who leads its data brokerage research project; Hayley Barton, a Master of Public Policy and Master of Business Administration student at Duke University and a former research assistant on Duke's data brokerage research project; and Brady Allen Kruse, a Master of Public Policy student at Duke University and a research assistant on Duke's data brokerage research project.They talked about the kinds of data that data brokers collect and sell about U.S. military personnel, the national security risks created by these practices, and the gaps in the law that enable this activity. They also discussed policy recommendations for the U.S. federal government to address the risks associated with data brokerage and the sale of data on former and active-duty U.S. military personnel.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today's episode is a recording of a SEVEN Talk from the 2022 Alumni Forum. This talk, given by Frank Bruni '86, is entitled, “We Are Starfish.” Frank is a Professor of the Practice of Journalism and Public Policy at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. The alumnus is also author of four New York Times best sellers, including his new memoir The Beauty of Dusk: On Vision Lost and Found.You can watch all of the SEVEN Talks on our YouTube channel. More about FrankFrank Bruni '86 has been a prominent journalist for more than three decades, including more than twenty-five years at The New York Times, the last ten of them as a nationally renowned op-ed columnist who appeared frequently as a television commentator. (His archive of columns, starting with the most recent, can be found here.) He was also a White House correspondent for the Times, its Rome bureau chief and, for five years, its chief restaurant critic. Frank is the author of four New York Times bestsellers, including The Beauty of Dusk, which reached #5 on both the hardcover nonfiction and the combined print and e-book nonfiction lists. In July 2021, he became a professor at Duke University, teaching media-oriented classes in the Sanford School of Public Policy. He continues to write his popular weekly newsletter for the Times (you can sign up here) and to produce occasional essays as one of the newspaper's Contributing Opinion Writers. He lives in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.How to listenOn your mobile device, you can listen and subscribe to Catalyze on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. For any other podcast app, you can find the show using our RSS feed.Catalyze is hosted and produced by Sarah O'Carroll for the Morehead-Cain Foundation, home of the first merit scholarship program in the United States and located at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. You can let us know what you thought of the episode by finding us on Twitter or Instagram at @moreheadcain or you can email us at communications@moreheadcain.org.

In the debate about data privacy and harms, one issue has not received adequate attention by the press or in policy conversations relative to the severity and volume of harm: the link between publicly available information and stalking and gendered violence. To discuss how “people search” data brokers use public information and contribute to stalking and abuse, Lawfare's Fellow in Technology Policy and Law, Eugenia Lostri, sat down with Justin Sherman who recently wrote a Lawfare article on the topic. Justin is the Founder and CEO of Global Cyber Strategies and a Senior Fellow at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. They talked about the publicly available information carve-outs, the systemic nature of the problem, and how policymakers should step in.Content Warning: This episode contains discussions of gendered violence and stalking. Listener discretion is advised.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Remember when President Donald Trump tried to ban TikTok? He called attention to the risk that American users’ data could fall into the hands of Chinese authorities who have ties to the app’s owners. A judge blocked the ban, but even if he hadn’t, experts say so much of our personal information is available to buy from run-of-the-mill data brokers. That includes information on Americans serving in the military, which can have big consequences for national security. Marketplace's Lily Jamali spoke to Justin Sherman, senior fellow at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, about a new study he led in which his team tried buying just that kind of data.

Remember when President Donald Trump tried to ban TikTok? He called attention to the risk that American users’ data could fall into the hands of Chinese authorities who have ties to the app’s owners. A judge blocked the ban, but even if he hadn’t, experts say so much of our personal information is available to buy from run-of-the-mill data brokers. That includes information on Americans serving in the military, which can have big consequences for national security. Marketplace's Lily Jamali spoke to Justin Sherman, senior fellow at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, about a new study he led in which his team tried buying just that kind of data.

Join Roger in this week's Liberty + Leadership Podcast as he speaks with John Hood, President of the John William Pope Foundation. Roger and John discuss John's transformation from journalist to think tank president to philanthropist. They explore John's leadership in rejuvenating the core concepts of American conservatism and the importance of Freedom Conservativism principles and the statement that he was instrumental in formulating. John also shares his insight about the importance of personal responsibility, civility and the critical role of arts and cultural programs in American society. John Hood is President at the John William Pope Foundation and serves on the board of the John Locke Foundation, a state policy think tank he founded in 1989. As a journalist, John wrote extensively about politics and public policy for several North Carolina newspapers and penned a syndicated column that appeared in more than 40 papers across the state. John authored seven nonfiction books and two historical-fantasy novels, “Mountain Folk” and “Forest Folk.” He is also a contributing editor at Reason Magazine. John was previously a Bradley Fellow with the Heritage Foundation and currently teaches at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. He received his undergraduate degree at UNC Chapel Hill and his master's degree at UNC-Greensboro. The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS President Roger Ream and produced by kglobal. This episode was recorded at Reason Magazine's podcast studio. If you have a comment or question for the show, please drop us an email at podcast@TFAS.org. To support TFAS and its mission, please visit TFAS.org/support.Forest Folk – John HoodMountain Folk – John HoodThe Soul of Civility: Alexandra HudsonThe Theme is Freedom - Stan EvansIn Defense of Freedom – Frank MeyerM. Stanton Evans: Conservative Wit, Apostle of Freedom - Steve HaywardSupport the show

Cal Newport's books, with titles like Deep Work, Digital Minimalism, and A World Without Email, have sold over two million copies worldwide. He's a contributing writer for the New Yorker, weighing in on hot button tech issues of the day. He is also a professor and a founding member of Georgetown University's Center for Digital Ethics. He joins host Judith Kelley, Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, to talk productivity and focus in the face of communication overload. Cal Newport was on Duke's campus to give the fall 2023 Crown Lecture in Ethics. Transcript & resources

This week, Reema sits down with Justin Sherman, CEO of Global Cyber Strategies, to talk all things data brokers. They cover the ad-tech ecosystem, the past, current, and future of federal and state-level regulation on data brokers, and what the data brokerage industry means for civil liberties. They then dig deep into recent FTC action, including the implications of FTC v. Kochava, the California DELETE Act, and what might be coming down the pipeline in data broker regulation - including the CFPB's latest action on data brokers. Justin's consulting firm, Global Cyber Strategies, is a Washington, DC-based research and advisory firm. Justin is also a senior fellow at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, where he leads its data brokerage research project and lectures on cybersecurity, privacy, and technology policy. In addition, he is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's also a contributing editor at Lawfare, an op-ed columnist at Slate Magazine, and a fellow at Stanford Starling Lab. Justin also serves as an advisor to the Christchurch Call to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online, a community of more than 120 governments, online service providers, and civil society organizations working to eliminate violent extremist content on the internet. Additionally, he is the technology advisor to the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.). Resources mentioned in the episode: 2013 U.S. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Report - A Review of the Data Broker Industry: Collection, Use, and Sale of Consumer Data for Marketing Purposes 2014 Federal Trade Commission Report -Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability 2023 Washington Post investigation into the outing of a closeted priest using phone location data originating from, among others, Grindr Justin's 2022 Lawfare article on a data broker who helped run anti-abortion ads to women in clinic waiting rooms 2022 Open Secrets report on data brokers who make millions selling data to political groups Follow Justin on LinkedIn or Twitter! Check out the Foundry on Instagram, Twitter, or LinkedIn and subscribe to our newsletter! If you'd like to support the show, donate to the Foundry here or reach out to us at foundrypodcasts@ilpfoundry.us. Thanks for listening, and stay tuned for our next episode! DISCLAIMER: Reema engages with the Foundry voluntarily and in her personal capacity. The views and opinions expressed on air do not reflect on the organizations Reema is affiliated with.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director, Roger Zakheim, sits down with Dr. Peter Feaver who is a Professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and who runs their Duke Program in American Grand Strategy, Duke University. They discussed Dr. Feaver's new book, “Thanks For Your Service,” which analyzes the […]

This episode was originally published on Mar. 28, 2023. Digital tools like virtual therapy and meditation apps have made mental health care more accessible. But they've made data about the people using them more accessible too. That's what Joanne Kim found while conducting research as an undergraduate student at Duke University. The final report was published in February. During her study, Kim identified 11 data broker firms willing and able to sell highly sensitive mental health data to her. Marketplace's Meghan McCarty Carino spoke with Justin Sherman, a senior fellow at Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy who helped oversee the study, about how this data ends up on the market.

This episode was originally published on Mar. 28, 2023. Digital tools like virtual therapy and meditation apps have made mental health care more accessible. But they've made data about the people using them more accessible too. That's what Joanne Kim found while conducting research as an undergraduate student at Duke University. The final report was published in February. During her study, Kim identified 11 data broker firms willing and able to sell highly sensitive mental health data to her. Marketplace's Meghan McCarty Carino spoke with Justin Sherman, a senior fellow at Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy who helped oversee the study, about how this data ends up on the market.

The data broker industry and its role in the digital economy is under scrutiny from Congress. Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Justin Sherman, the Founder and CEO of Global Cyber Strategies and a Senior Fellow at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, to discuss the data broker ecosystem and the recent article he published in Lawfare about two bills from a previous congress that seek to give consumers more control over the information that data brokers collect and sell about them. They talked about some of the scams and other harms caused by data brokers, the regulatory approaches taken by each bill, and whether federal legislation regulating data brokers will get passed.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Digital tools like virtual therapy and meditation apps have made mental health care more accessible. But they’ve made data about the people using them more accessible too. That’s what Joanne Kim found while conducting research as an undergraduate student at Duke University. Kim identified 11 data broker firms willing and able to sell highly sensitive mental health data to her. Marketplace’s Meghan McCarty Carino spoke with Justin Sherman, a senior fellow at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy who helped oversee the study, about how this data ends up on the market.

Digital tools like virtual therapy and meditation apps have made mental health care more accessible. But they’ve made data about the people using them more accessible too. That’s what Joanne Kim found while conducting research as an undergraduate student at Duke University. Kim identified 11 data broker firms willing and able to sell highly sensitive mental health data to her. Marketplace’s Meghan McCarty Carino spoke with Justin Sherman, a senior fellow at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy who helped oversee the study, about how this data ends up on the market.