The question I address in this project is how, why, and in what way new ideas, and new combinations of ideas, come to be instantiated in policy proposals. Given that a diverse universe of policy ideas exist, this project attempts to understand why legislators chose to incorporate some possibilities, but not others, at particular times. To answer this question, I focus on federal gendered pay inequity policy proposals in the United States beginning in 1945, the year when a sustained legislative effort to remedy gendered pay inequity began in the U.S. Congress. I find that gendered pay inequity policy content is characterized by relatively long periods of ideational stability punctuated by moments of sudden policy idea change. These moments of sudden change I refer to as policy innovation junctures. Since 1945, there have been four policy innovation junctures: Equal Pay Inception of the 79th congress (1945-1946); Married Mothers’ Benefits of the 90th Congress (1967-1968); Professional Women & Training Programs of the 101st Congress (1989-1990); and Policy Synthesis of the 105th Congress (1997-1998). The policy ideas generated during these junctures come to dominate policy efforts pursued during the long periods of stability, very often comprising any legislation that is ultimately passed years, if not decades, down the road. I call this model of policy idea change Punctuated Policy Innovation. I further find that policy innovation junctures are more likely to occur during periods of (1) political and economic stability, as well as (2) increased activism on the part of important women’s organizations; much of the content of these junctures is dependent on the wider policy agenda, which (3) present policy alignment opportunities for (4) motivated legislators to use their experience, leadership positions, and electoral safety to introduce new ideas into gendered pay inequity policy proposals.

State governments have moved away from support for postsecondary institutions and systems toward policies that relieve the burden of high tuition for individual educational consumers through financial aid and other tuition mitigation policies. What explains the policy choices state politicians make regarding financial aid and tuition setting? I focus on the enactment of three types of tuition policies: market-based tuition pricing, need-based financial aid, and tax-advantaged tuition investment programs, or “tuition trusts.” These policies mitigate college costs for different segments of the population. For each policy, I conducted comparative research in New York, Texas, and California to gain a process-focused perspective on how politicians approached the problem of college affordability. As analytically necessary, I also researched these policies in additional states, specifically Florida, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. I supplement these case studies with quantitative analyses of the predictors of need-based aid spending and tuition trust program enactment for all fifty states between the years 1980 and 2012. I show that organizational features of the state, and conflicts over the distribution of resources between racial and ethnic groups, are the underlying factors that explain variation in the adoption of tuition mitigation policies. Specifically, state policymakers appear to be less willing to progressively redistribute the costs of higher education when state shares of the Black population are larger but more willing when state shares of the Hispanic population are larger. The nature of structural arrangements—which are rooted in longer histories of racial segregation and discrimination, as well as competition between higher education institutions—shape the ideological commitments and actions of legislators and other actors involved in the policymaking process. These commitments encourage different approaches to tuition pricing and mitigation across states. College costs limit who can attend higher education, who completes their degree, and the level of debt they incur. My research contributes to our understanding of how policymakers respond to the crisis of cost in higher education and provides insight into how higher education stakeholders might direct their efforts to broaden access by decreasing the burden of college tuition.

In this dissertation, I analyze the mobility patterns of renters living in project-based assisted housing. Most research suggests that renters living in assisted housing are stuck in disadvantageous contexts and are unable to access homes in more affluent communities, where resources and opportunities tend to be concentrated. However, our paradigms of residential mobility are inadequate for explaining the mobility patterns of assisted renters for at least three reasons. First, they assume that residents choose places to live primarily by selecting among a set of neighborhoods rather than a set of housing options. Second, they assume that all time spent living in a high poverty context is detrimental, and equally detrimental, to one’s wellbeing and life chances. Third, they consider assisted housing to be a uniformly disadvantageous context where resources and opportunities are scarce. I explain when and why these assumptions are inaccurate and argue that assisted housing can increase residential stability by providing renters with housing that is affordable, safe, and accommodating of their needs. I further argue that residential stability is a resource renters use to improve their wellbeing and increase their access to opportunities. I show how residents living in assisted housing are able to access resources and opportunities from their neighbors and from an organizational resource broker that owns and manages assisted housing. To make my case, I draw on data from the American Housing Survey, the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey, and the San Diego Assisted Housing Survey. In contrast with prevailing theories of residential mobility and neighborhood attainment, I find that residents may remain in assisted housing over long periods of time because doing so can improve their life chances to a greater extent than moving to a new home or neighborhood.

This dissertation draws on interviews and ethnography with service providers, local officials and currently and formerly homeless sex workers to evaluate the effects of three different governmental responses to poverty: Criminalization, medicalization, and harm reduction. In order to understand the relationship between poverty management policies and economic insecurity, I compare my participants’ experiences with law enforcement and social service agencies. Focusing on one informal occupational group demonstrates how and why poor people with similar income strategies experience different interventions. My dissertation research contributes to a broader understanding of how law enforcement and service agencies construct race and gender, and develops a theory of individualizing and structurally transformative responses to poverty.