The Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA) is pleased to announce the appointment of Wendy A. Naus as the next COSSA Executive Director.  Naus will assume her position on January 1, 2014. She replaces Howard J. Silver, who will retire from COSSA at the end of the year after 30 years of service to the social science community.  

Naus comes to COSSA from Lewis-Burke Associates LLC, a Washington, D.C. lobbying firm where since 2004 she represented the federal policy and research interests of national scientific associations and leading U.S. research universities. Over the last decade, Naus has worked to promote federal policies and legislation important to social and behavioral scientists, advocated for sustained funding for social science research and training programs at the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and other federal agencies, and engaged with Congress, federal agencies, and the broader scientific community to promote the value of federally-funded social science.  In addition to her policy expertise in social science, Naus' knowledge extends to federal policy and research programs related to biomedical research and environmental science across the federal government.

Naus has achieved several legislative, regulatory, and profile-raising successes on behalf of clients, including most recently the creation and funding of a new $10 million training grants program at the Department of Health and Human Services aimed at increasing the number of competently-prepared health professionals working in the area of mental health.  She has worked to engage scientists directly in the public policy process by facilitating grassroots advocacy campaigns and identifying opportunities for researchers to serve as experts, such as opportunities to provide testimony and serve on influential federal boards and committees.  In addition, Naus has designed and implemented countless advocacy training programs focused on assisting researchers in developing messages that will resonate with policy audiences about the importance of their science. 

A native of Buffalo, New York, Naus holds a B.A. in political science and urban studies from Canisius College, graduating magna cum laude. 

In leaving, I first want to thank the staff members who have collaborated with me during my tenure to make COSSA the effective force it has become. In particular, Angela Sharpe, COSSA's current Deputy Director, who during the past 18 years has been an invaluable part of our efforts to advocate for the importance of the connection between health and behavior to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). She has also served COSSA in many other ways that have enhanced its value.

I also want to thank all those who have served on the COSSA Executive Committee and Board of Directors, who have provided me with advice and support to make COSSA a key player in U.S. science policy. In addition, social and behavioral scientists across the country have answered our many calls to testify and lobby Congress, to present the results of their research in our many Congressional briefings, and to speak at our annual meetings. I am grateful for their responsiveness. Two people epitomize this, Al Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University and Ken Prewitt of Columbia and the former director of the U.S. Census. Both served as COSSA President and both spoke at congressional briefings and annual meetings. Blumstein also was a COSSA witness before the House Appropriations Committee. Prewitt was a leading player in COSSA's founding.

During my tenure, I have dealt with five presidential administrations, 16 Congresses of all political combinations, nine National Science Foundation (NSF) directors, six NIH directors, seven presidential science advisers, six Assistant Directors for NSF's Social, Behavioral and Economics (SBE) sciences directorate, four directors of NIH's Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), and countless other officials in both the Executive and Legislative branches.

I have had the pleasure to work with many friends and colleagues in the Executive Branch agencies. In particular, interacting with Cora Marrett in her many positions of leadership at NSF has been a joy. It began during her tenure as the first Assistant Director for the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences in 1992 and culminates with her current second stint as NSF's Acting Director.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. David Price (D-NC), a fellow political scientist, has been a friend as well as supporter. The House Science Committee Chairmen, the late Rep. George Brown (D-CA) and Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), also demonstrated strong support for all the sciences and it was a pleasure to work with them. I am also grateful for all the staff people who have listened to my arguments and sometimes did what I asked.

Triumphs and Challenges

COSSA has had many triumphs as well as some challenges. The formation of the SBE directorate in 1991, the establishment of OBSSR, and the creation of the position of Assistant Director for the SBE science at the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) were all COSSA driven successes.

Yet, problems have arisen throughout COSSA's history. One of my earliest activities at COSSA was, along with then-Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Janet Norwood (who would later become COSSA's President) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), helping to save the National Longitudinal Studies (NLS) of Labor Market Experiences, as it was known then. In the category of the more things change, the more they remain the same (of which there are many examples), the future of the NLS is once again uncertain.

Another example comes from my first visits with congressional staff back in 1983, when I was admonished that social scientists need to be more careful about their grant titles. A few weeks ago, in a visit with a Democratic Senator's staff person, it was clear that this issue still posed problems for this Senator when it came to supporting funding for social and behavioral science research.

During the past thirty years, there have been significant attempts by Congress and the Administration to limit or eliminate funding for the SBE sciences. In the late 1980s and early 1990s there were attacks on NIH's support for research on sexual behavior, which would later resurface in 2003 and 2004. In 1995-96, then House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) wanted to eliminate the directorate at NSF. In 2006-07, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) argued that the social sciences do not belong at NSF. In 2009, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wanted to eliminate the political science program at NSF, a position later emulated in 2012 by Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ). That same year Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) tried to eliminate economics research at NIH, and Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) sponsored an amendment that passed the House to eliminate the American Community Survey. All of these challenges were eventually thwarted by COSSA working with its members, friends in Congress, and its allies in the rest of the science and higher education communities. Finally, in March 2013 Senator Coburn returned with a successful amendment to the Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations bill that restricted NSF's political science program to funding projects that "promote the national security and economic development of the United States." COSSA and its allies are currently working hard to educate Congress about the need to eliminate the amendment in any future spending bills.

Support from the Scientific and Higher Education Communities

At the same time, since its establishment COSSA has enjoyed significant support from the rest of the science and higher education communities. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has been a significant partner for COSSA in many endeavors and continues to help in the current difficulties by organizing inter-society letters of support. The Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) as well as individual universities have also helped with COSSA's efforts to promote and defend the SBE sciences. From 1994-2000, I was the Chair of the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF), which focuses on advocating increased NSF funding. This brought me into contact with the leadership of many other scientific societies outside the SBE world. The dividends of this cooperation have been apparent in many ways as the science community has stood with COSSA in continuing to oppose attacks on our sciences.

Working in coalitions has been an important part of COSSA's success. Aside from CNSF, COSSA has also taken leadership positions in many coalitions and helped create two important ones, chaired by Angela Sharpe -- the Coalition for the Advancement of Health Through Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (CAHT-BSSR) and the Coalition to Promote Research (CPR). Angela has also been responsible for COSSA's significant activities in the area of enhancing diversity in the sciences.

The COSSA newsletter, COSSA Washington Update, remains our key communications instrument. It covers news and events from Washington affecting the social and behavioral science community. We have also moved into the social media age with a Facebook page and a Twitter account @COSSADC.

The annual meeting has evolved into the COSSA Colloquium. Taking place over a day and a half, it continues to feature presentations from policy makers and opinion leaders as well as panels on important issues facing the social and behavioral sciences. This year we had the special honor of a strong supportive address from Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). We also appreciate the generosity of SAGE publications in helping to support this event.

Finally, as we continue to cope with the current threats to funding for the social and behavioral sciences from the House Science Committee and others, COSSA will remain ever vigilant. As the late Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon once said: "Perhaps the most important role of the social sciences, among their many roles, is to provide this basic fund of knowledge about ourselves and our institutions -- a foundation of reality for the thinking and decision making of legislators, managers, both governmental and corporate, and all of us as citizens, householders, and employees." As he also noted, this is what makes the social and behavioral sciences the true "hard sciences." Again, thank you for the support and all the best for the future.

Howard J. Silver

December 2013

COSSA Executive Director Howard Silver has testified to the Subcommittee promoting the budgets of these agencies and been treated with courtesy even when he appeared as the last of 46 witnesses that the Chairman had to sit through in an all-day session of testifiers.

He has also watched Wolf interact with the NSF Directors in oversight hearings. One memorable exchange with then-Director Subra Suresh, who was leaving to become President of Carnegie Mellon University, involved a major discussion of the relative merits of Pennsylvania's football teams, both collegiate and professional. Wolf grew up in Philadelphia and went to Penn State. The Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) represents Philadelphia.

A supporter of NSF funding who has been hamstrung by low budget allocations from the House leadership, earlier this year Wolf asked for a report on Youth Violence from the Foundation. The Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences directorate produced the report quickly and a hearing was held in March (see Update, March 25, 2013).

The Chairman was also a strong supporter of STEM Education, and he prodded NSF to complete a report on how to improve math and science education. Later, a major activity surrounding the report was held in Philadelphia.

Perhaps, the most disappointing part of Wolf's Chairmanship was his vote for the Flake Amendment in 2012 that would have eliminated NSF's political science program (see Update, May 14, 2012). In an atmosphere of a late-night frenzy of amendments, including a vote to eliminate the American Community Survey, the amendment sponsored by then-Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) passed by ten votes. After announcing that, unlike most of his fellow Republicans in the House, he believed in a balanced approach to solving the deficit and debt problems, including enhanced revenues, Wolf joined most of his GOP colleagues and voted to cut NSF's budget by $10 million (the cost of the political science program).

The Subcommittee also had jurisdiction over the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and there were a number of confrontations with Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren, mostly over the Administration's NASA policy and its scientific exchanges with China. Wolf was a fierce critic of the Chinese regime, for its persecution of its Christian population and for its cyber espionage activities.

His passion for his causes, his strong support for NSF, and his moderation in the context of today's House Republicans, will be missed come 2015.

NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) director Richard Nakamura, representing the Diversity Workgroup Subcommittee on Peer Review, began by discussing how peer review currently functions, in what Collins characterized, "as this interesting, challenging, and important space of being completely fair to individuals with diverse backgrounds." Nakamura acknowledged that it was a complicated topic, referencing the study which indicated that "African Americans suffered an award disparity of 10 percentage points and were less likely to receive NIH funding compared to whites." The suggested explanation was that the disparity was the result of a "cumulative advantage" of non-Black applicants. "Applications with strong priority scores were equally likely to be funded regardless of race," which suggested to many at NIH that "disparities develop at the peer review stage or earlier," Nakamura explained. He also noted the commentary that was published in the same issue as the Ginther paper in which NIH deputy director Lawrence Tabak and Collins made "the obvious point" that the "disparity of awards survived several controls for career quality and NIH must face the possibility of bias,...including the possibility of bias in peer review."

Nakamura pointed out that he and Sally Rockey (Director, NIH Office of Extramural Research (OER)) were asked to work from the inside to figure out what was going on. He reviewed the ACD Working Group's recommendations that related to peer review: 

• Provide more information to applicants whose applications were not discussed
• Create a working group with expertise in social and behavioral science to: a) study the possibility of real or perceived bias in peer review and b) conduct text and discourse analysis of peer review to evaluate bias
• Attempt an intervention by conducting a trial of validated bias or diversity awareness training
• Determine if bias can be eliminated by anonymizing the identity of the PI and institution in grant review.

The one thing that was done immediately was the provision of extra guidance by Sally Amero (OER) of "Next Steps" on summary statements for all applicants. A major suggestion, he explained, is to direct applicants to go to the program person listed in the funding opportunity announcement and discuss with them either the prospects of an award based on the score or, for poorer scores, the options available, including reapplication.

A subcommittee was appointed by Collins. Joan Y. Reede (Harvard Medical School and a COSSA Colloquium speaker on this topic) and Dana Y. Takagi (University of California, Santa Cruz) served as co-chairs of the subcommittee established in April 2012 with an 18-month lifespan. Other subcommittee members, largely social and behavioral scientists, included: Valeria Reyna (Cornell University), John F. Dovidio (Yale University), Gordon B. Moskowitz (Lehigh University), Jenessa R. Shapiro (University of California, Los Angeles), Oscar Ybarra (University of Michigan, and Nakamura.

Nakamura informed the ACD that the Subcommittee has been very active, as have CSR and OER. Accomplishments so far, he reported, include the development of measures, tools, and solicitations. A survey and focus group contract was awarded to assess views of minority and non-minority new investigators regarding the fairness and impartiality of the NIH peer review process. They felt it would be helpful to supplement the Ginther paper to get attitudes and understand how minority and non-minority investigators are seeing the system and what the differences are. They are also very aware that successful and unsuccessful investigators need to be explored because they will have very different points of views, he explained.

The Center for Information Technology is working with the subcommittee to develop text analysis software for this project. And independently, OER is working on a text analysis system.

There is a preliminary discussion of a potential challenge.gov solicitation, Strategies to Detect Bias is Peer Review, in order to stimulate ideas from the general public. One of the things the subcommittee found out pretty quickly, Nakamura explained, is that there are no validated measures that allow for detection of bias and "certainly no strategies that allow you in a validated way to neutralize such bias." The goal is to see if there are "fresh ideas out there" in addition to the ideas that are brought to the table by the social and behavioral scientists on the Subcommittee. He expects a future contract to cover both detecting and neutralizing bias.

To meet the 18-month deadline, the Subcommittee is focusing on competitive solicitations in which they develop contracts with extramural investigators, using CSR as a test bed for ideas. The intent is to announce competitive solicitations, similar to grants. Contracts allow NIH to have active collaboration. These will be awarded in 2014, after which the committee will disband and the monitoring of the award over to the parent diversity workgroup.

Nakamura also highlighted the grant by Molly Carnes, University of Wisconsin, Madison, submitted through the Transformative R01 program (Common Fund) to explore the science of peer review and to actually address some of the questions raised by the Committee's recommendations. Carnes' research includes text analysis of summary statements and an analysis of discourse during study section discussions. It is a significant award ($2.9 billion) and reduces the funds available to CSR. Nakamura acknowledged that this is tricky and will have to be discussed further.

He also highlighted the development and testing effort underway in consultation with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to develop the idea of an intervention to reduce the possibility of bias. He noted another solicitation -- Training to Strengthen Fairness and Impartiality in Peer Review -- and a future request for proposals to develop the training program.

Anonymizing experiments are also under examination. Nakamura suggested these experiments are "extremely complicated," and may not actually be achieved within the NIH structure. Accordingly, they are exploring whether they can have a two-stage review in which the non-institution, non-PIs are discussed first and then giving them to other parts so that we can see how those influence the final outcomes. There was considerable discussion of how difficult this could be to do. The Committee is examining if they can do the simple things to see if they have an impact. A committee member pointed out the possibility of the Hawthorne effect -- just because you are doing an experiment everybody pays attention. Conversely, it was noted that the research on implicit bias shows that if you point out what implicit bias is before people start a review process, the effect is lessened, and that is a good version of the Hawthorne effect, forcing people to deal consciously with the unconscious bias. Nakamura noted that the recent surveys indicate that the gap has dropped, resulting from just the discussion of the issue.

Nakamura shared additional recommendations that the committee would like to have but didn't have time to go into, which included: 

• Conduct additional analyses on funding disparities (OER)
• Explore alternative hypotheses for disparity in funding -- grantsmanship skills, and grammar and spelling assessment (OER)
• Evaluate availability of Institutional Resources, Mentors -- Survey of PIs, and Review of institutional resources
• Evaluate the efficacy of the Early Career Review Program (ECR)

He highlighted NIH's Early Career Reviewer Program, and Increases in Reviewers from Under-represented Groups program, which are additional programs the NIH has established to ensure there is more representation on the Committees. He reported that they have been quite successful. For instance, they have doubled the number of African Americans on CSR's committees by about 25 percent.

Out of time, Nakamura left the committee with a slide of "Progress to Date"

• 3,200 applications received as of September 18, 2013 from 636 institutions
• 2,384 ECRs have been accepted into the program
• 1,086 study sections to date have included an ECR
  • o    785 have served on at least one study section
  • o    031 have served on two study sections
• All Institutional Review Groups (IRGs0 have included ECR on their rosters
  • o    222 Study Sections have included ECRs on their rosters.

ACD Working Group on Diversity Status Report

Tuckson reviewed the Working Group's charge and goals, along with the recommendations made by the group. The recommendations addressed four areas: pipeline, mentoring, peer view, and infrastructure. He presented the strategic overview of extramural diversity initiatives that are part of the Common Fund. The overarching goal is to strengthen the NIH research enterprise through a more diverse and robust workforce, attracting talented individuals from all population sectors. The program's goal is to establish transformative approaches to engage individuals, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds, in biomedical research career paths, enhance persistence at all career stages, and prepare them to thrive. There is a particular emphasis on undergraduates, considered a key career point where students from underrepresented populations exit the pipeline. Through an integrated set of initiatives, the program will investigate what works and for whom. According to the Working Group, transformation is expected to occur at awardee institutions, but larger impact will result from dissemination of lessons learned for a nationwide adoption of effective strategies.

Tuckson emphasized that the NIH has already launched three pilot extramural programs "that will become the predicate for larger initiative" based upon what is learned from them. He shared that from the Working Group's perspective, these three things "have been very transformative."

Pettigrew described the initiatives to the ACD and emphasized that they "aspire to be transformative."

Extramural Grant # 1: Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) - design and implement transformative, broad-based approaches to research education and training at comparatively under-resourced institutions with concentrations of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The initiative responds to the ACD recommendations to develop interest in STEM inK-12 and beyond (Rec. #2), provide additional financial support for undergraduates (Rec. #3), and establish bold, multi-year awards to enhance diversity at under resourced institutions (Rec. #8).

Pettigrew explained that the BUILD award supports new and evidence-based approaches towards institutional, faculty, and study development through efforts such as sustaining interest in research, increasing scholarly production, and enhancing pursuit of biomedical research. Recipients will test proposed novel, transformative interventions on an institution-wide level. Awardees will work with the consortium (BUILD, National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), and Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC)) to determine what works and for whom. The agency received 90 applications for planning grants which were awarded in the fall. A multi-year funding opportunity announcement is expected soon.

Extramural Grant #2: National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) - develop a networked set of skilled mentors from diverse disciplines linked to mentees across the country in robust mentoring relationships, develop best practices for mentoring, provide training opportunities for mentors, and establish standards through which mentoring efficacy can be assessed. The grant responds to recommendations that call for a systematic review and evaluation of all diversity programs (Rec. #1), and establish bold, multi-year awards to enhance diversity at under resourced institutions (Rec. #8).

The NRMN award will support evidence-based approaches towards developing effective mentoring. The recipient of the award will test these approaches on a large scale. As standards evolve, awardees will work with the consortium to determine what works and for whom. NRMN is designed to connect students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty to experienced mentors and network to the larger biomedical community, develop standards for and provide training in good mentorship, provide training in grantsmanship and career development skills, and link with BUILD institutions; open to all student participants.

Pettigrew reported that the agency received approximately 30 applications; seven awards have been made. Multi-year FOAs are also forthcoming.

Extramural Grant #3 - Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC) - coordinate consortium-wide activities and evaluation of BUILD and NRMN programs. The CEC will also serve as the focal point for dissemination, sharing information with the broader biomedical research and training communities. The CEC responds to the Working Groups recommendation to establish a system of mentorship "networks" (Rec. # 5) and establish bold, multi-year awards to enhance diversity at under resourced institutions (Rec. #8).

The CEC will identify specific goals/metrics tailored to the individual environment of each awardee; assess the impact of approach used by each site; coordinate data acquisition across sites; and disseminate consortium-endorsed practices and lessons learned to transform training and mentoring programs.

Pettigrew also announced the first-ever workshop presented directly to NIH senior leadership focused on diversity and inclusion. A second session presented NIH-wide is available at http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live_13316. The agenda included presentations on: understanding and addressing diversity, diversity as an Imperative for Excellence, implicit bias, evolution of diversity, stereotype threat, impostor phenomenon, power and social responsibility, social inequality, and diversity as a fundamental tenet of innovation.

On December 1, the NIH launched its WISER (Working towards creating an Inclusive and Supportive Environment for Research) program with the goal to collect information from the entire NIH workforce. The survey topic areas include personal success, diversity and inclusion, the work environment, and mentoring at NIH.

A third program includes a workshop on mentoring and sponsorship in the spring of 2014. The goal of the workshop is to define mentoring, sponsorship, advocacy and other related concepts to establish a reference working model of good mentorship; identify successes and gaps in the mentoring infrastructure of the NIH with the intent of establishing interventions or strategies to improve the mentoring and sponsorship. The workshop will address such questions as:

• How do you define mentor, sponsor, advocate, champion, coach?
• What data/evidence exist for supporting various approaches?
• How do psychosocial phenomenon impact mentoring
• What interventions can be implemented?

According to Pettigrew, the next steps for the ACD WGD include a discussion of how to best communicate the goals and intent of the Common Fund Diversity Program.

NCHS also released the first report from the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers (NSLTCP), Long-Term Care Services in the United States: 2013 Overview, which includes general, descriptive information on the supply, organizational characteristics, staffing, and services offered by providers of long-term care services; and the demographic, health, and functional characteristics of users of these services. Key findings include:

• In 2012, over 58,000 regulated long-term care providers served about eight million people.
• These long-term care facilities are a diverse group and include adult day services centers, home health agencies, hospices, nursing homes, and assisted living and residential care communities.
• Provider sectors differed in ownership, and average size and supply varied by region. The majority of all sectors except adult day services centers were for profit.
• Provider sectors differed in their nursing staffing levels, use of social workers, and variety of services offered.
• Rates of use of long-term care services varied by sector and state.
• Users of long-term care services varied by sector in their demographic and health characteristics and functional status.

More information about the NSLTCP is available here.

In addition, NCHS has released two new data briefs:

• Health Insurance Coverage and Adverse Experiences With Physician Availability: United States, 2012, which incorporates data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), and
• Measures of Muscular Strength in U.S. Children and Adolescents, 2012, which uses data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) National Youth Fitness Survey.

The survey reports that 39.5 percent of twelfth graders view regular marijuana use negatively, a perception that has decreased from last year's rate of 44.1 percent. This is also the lowest rate in two decades. Daily marijuana use among high school seniors is up to 6.5 percent, and more tenth graders report smoking marijuana than cigarettes. Over the past year, 12, 29.8, and 36 percent of eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders respectively said they have smoked marijuana.

NIDA Director Nora Volkow commented on the significant changes of perception and use of marijuana: "It is important to remember that over the past two decades, levels of THC -- the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana -- have gone up a great deal, from 3.75 percent in 1995 to an average of 15 percent in today's marijuana cigarettes. Daily use today can have stronger effects on a developing teen brain than it did 10 or 20 years ago." She hypothesized that the changes in the national discussion surrounding marijuana, largely brought on by legalization in states such as Colorado and Washington, have played a role in the increased usage.

Here are some additional findings from this year's report:

• The percentage of students reporting illicit drug use in 2013 remains unchanged from the previous year and largely stable over the past five years.
• The five most-reported drugs used are, in descending order: alcohol, marijuana, hookah (tobacco), small cigars, and amphetamines.
• The use of Vicodin has dropped significantly by tenth and  twelfth graders.
• There is no significant difference in the source used to acquire marijuana in states where medicinal marijuana is legal versus states where it is not.
• Cocaine use is at its lowest rate in five years.
• Nonmedical use of amphetamines has declined significantly among eight graders but increased among those in the twelfth grade.
• The reported use of alcohol is at an all-time low for this report and shows a decreasing trend.
• Cigarette use is at all-time lows and the perceived risk of smoking continues to increase. Additionally, the disapproval of smoking is much higher than the perception of risk.

The full report can be found at: http://www.drugabuse.gov/monitoring-future-survey-overview-findings-2013.

Mansbridge began by detailing the salience of this report. Conditions for inventive negotiations are not present in the current Congress, which is exacerbated by high polarization driven by evenly matched parties. The makeup of this Congress -- similar to the do-nothing Congresses of the 1870s -- is a poor environment for negotiation to produce inventive compromise. Additionally, Mansbridge stated that members of Congress today do not place a high value on negotiation.

Martin, a comparative political scientist, wondered why our country seems to work so poorly and what others do right. In Europe in particular, she said, the "rules of political engagement" are deeply embedded into the institutions, forcing negotiation to occur at an institutional-level. For instance, there are built-in roles for non-partisan, technical expertise; there are forced, repeated interactions between parties; there is more secrecy in the policy-making process, which creates a favorable environment for more robust compromise; and there are institutional penalties for default -- meaning if a deal is not made there is a default fallback option incentivizing reaching an agreement. Finally, the political environment of these countries creates more of a "mandate for action" and an intolerance for inaction.

In Binder's view, deal making in a polarized political climate is based on politicians making calculated political decisions. For instance, in the recent government shutdown, Republicans determined that getting a deal done would have cost them more than not getting one done. Ultimately, polling suggests they were mistaken, but their calculations supported their actions. Similarly, in the recently passed budget deal, according to Binder, Republicans determined that reaching a deal was important so as to prove they are able to govern. She concluded by saying a return to regular order and more secrecy in the agreement-making process are necessary to produce more compromise.

In a question and answer session, Binder was asked about the role of the president in promoting deal making. She said that the president faces a difficult challenge with this: if he embraces something it could backfire and encourage the other party to either act or not act, whereas if he did not embrace it at all a deal might have been reached. When asked about how Europe successfully incorporates third party technical experts into the process, Mansbridge said that, unlike the U.S., the business community is much more organized. Martin said that in Europe, third party experts are more politically protected when compared to the US and that they don't wait until the last minute to step into the policymaking process.

Zlotnik began by laying out the importance of this briefing. In 2011, there were more than three million requests for social services based on childhood abuse or neglect. It costs upwards of $80 billion for the government to handle these cases. Moreover, poverty is the primary risk factor for maltreatment, but there is still much to learn about the causal linkage between abuse/neglect and poverty.

Briar-Lawson began by giving an overview of some of the existing research on the topic. Historically, she said, the treatment of childhood abuse/neglect cases was a combination of economic and social assistance. Now, the trend is towards only economic assistance, leaving the underlying problems unaddressed. This is caused by a decreasing social workforce, leaving fewer, lower-trained individuals to meet an increasing demand for their services. Further, many of the programs in place today do not adequately address moving the family out of poverty, which is by far the largest risk factor in abuse and neglect cases.

Slack discussed more specific research on the link between poverty and abuse/neglect. She stated that most poor families to do not maltreat, but cases of maltreatment are most likely to come from poor families. In general, she said, studies show that a clear causal mechanism exists between poverty and neglect, but it is difficult to determine what within poverty the triggers the neglect. Economic hardship creates many conditions which lead to abuse/neglect, but research conducted following the recession has shown counterintuitive results in these trends. In conclusion, she stated more rigorous research is needed.

Chang, who was recently named the Associate Commissioner of the Children's Bureau -- an $8 billion branch of the Department of Health and Human Services, which "partners with federal, state, tribal and local agencies to improve the overall health and well-being of our nation's children and families" -- discussed her organization's role in address abuse and neglect. The Children's Bureau places a particular emphasis on foster families, allocating six of the eight billion dollars to the foster program. She said they have found that many states are moving away from "adversarial" responses to cases of abuse/neglect towards more "alternative" responses which are more encompassing. She said that her organization has found that the need to alleviate lack of adequate housing in these cases, which tends to lead to family dissolution, is one of the most pressing issues.

This is the last Update for 2013. We will return in mid-January. We wish all our readers a happy holiday and best wishes for a happy and healthy 2014!