Flooding, including the devastation caused recently by Hurricane Helene, is responsible for $5 billion in annual damages in the U.S. That’s more than any other type of weather-related extreme event.

To address the problem, the federal government instituted a program in 1990 that helps reduce flood insurance costs in communities enacting measures to better handle flooding. If, say, a town preserves open space as a buffer against coastal flooding, or develops better stormwater management, area policy owners get discounts on their premiums. Studies show the program works well: It has reduced overall flood damage in participating communities.

However, a new study led by an MIT researcher shows that the effects of the program differ greatly from place to place. For instance, higher-population communities, which likely have more means to introduce flood defenses, benefit more than smaller communities, to the tune of about $4,000 per insured household.

“When we evaluate it, the effects of the same policy vary widely among different types of communities,” says study co-author Lidia Cano Pecharromán, a Ph.D. candidate in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning.

Referring to climate and environmental justice concerns, she adds, “It’s important to understand not just if a policy is effective, but who is benefitting, so that we can make necessary adjustments and reach all the targets we want to reach.”

The paper, “Exposing Disparities in Flood Adaptation for Equitable Future Interventions in the U.S.,” is published in Nature Communications. The authors are Cano Pecharromán and ChangHoon Hahn, an associate research scholar at Princeton University.

Able to afford help

The program in question was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which has a division, the Flood Insurance Mitigation Administration, focusing on this issue. In 1990, FEMA initiated the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System, which incentivizes communities to enact measures that help prevent or reduce flooding.

Communities can engage in a broad set of related activities, including floodplain mapping, preservation of open spaces, stormwater management activities, creating flood warning systems, or even developing public information and participation programs. In exchange, area residents receive a discount on their flood insurance premium rates.

To conduct the study, the researchers examined 2.5 million flood insurance claims filed with FEMA since then. They also examined U.S. Census Bureau data to analyze demographic and economic data about communities, and incorporated flood risk data from the First Street Foundation.

By comparing more than 1,500 communities in the FEMA program, the researchers were able to quantify its different relative effects—depending on community characteristics such as population, race, income or flood risk. For instance, higher-income communities seem better able to make more flood-control and mitigation investments, earning better FEMA ratings and, ultimately, enacting more effective measures.

“You see some positive effects for low-income communities, but as the risks go up, these disappear, while only high-income communities continue seeing these positive effects,” says Cano Pecharromán. “They are likely able to afford measures that handle a higher risk indices for flooding.”

Similarly, the researchers found, communities with higher overall levels of education fare better from the flood-insurance program, with about $2,000 more in savings per individual policy than communities with lower levels of education. One way or another, communities with more assets in the first place—size, wealth, education—are better able to deploy or hire the civic and technical expertise necessary to enact more best practices against flood damage.

And even among lower-income communities in the program, communities with less population diversity see greater effectiveness from their flood program activities, realizing a gain of about $6,000 per household compared to communities where racial and ethnic minorities are predominant.

“These are substantial effects, and we should consider these things when making decisions and reviewing if our climate adaptation policies work,” Cano Pecharromán says.

An even larger number of communities is not in the FEMA program at all. The study identified 14,729 unique U.S. communities with flood issues. Many of those are likely lacking the capacity to engage on flooding issues the way even the lower-ranked communities within the FEMA program have at least taken some action so far.

“If we are able to consider all the communities that are not in the program because they can’t afford to do the basics, we would likely see that the effects are even larger among different communities,” Cano Pecharromán says.

Getting communities started

To make the program more effective for more people, Cano Pecharromán suggests that the federal government should consider how to help communities enact flood-control and mitigation measures in the first place.

“When we set out these kinds of policies, we need to consider how certain types of communities might need help with implementation,” she says.

Methodologically, the researchers arrived at their conclusions using an advanced statistical approach that Hahn, who is an astrophysicist by training, has applied to the study of dark energy and galaxies.

Instead of finding one “average treatment effect” of the FEMA program across all participating communities, they quantified the program’s impact while subdividing the set of participating set of communities according to their characteristics.

“We are able to calculate the causal effect of [the program], not as an average, which can hide these inequalities, but at every given level of the specific characteristics of communities we’re looking at, different levels of income, different levels of education, and more,” Cano Pecharromán says.

Government officials have seen Cano Pecharromán present the preliminary findings at meetings, and expressed interest in the results. Currently, she is also working on a follow-up study, which aims to pinpoint which types of local flood-mitigation programs provide the biggest benefits for local communities.

This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

Seattle’s Office of Labor Standards is investigating Amazon Logistics—the company’s vast network of delivery services—for alleged violations of labor laws, including the city’s ordinance requiring paid sick time for gig workers that went into effect this year.

The investigation appears focused on Amazon’s Flex drivers, who operate like gig workers and make deliveries for the company using their own vehicles and on their own schedule.

Amazon sent a letter to its Flex drivers last Friday to notify them of the investigation, according to a copy of the note shared with The Seattle Times.

A spokesperson for the Office of Labor Standards confirmed Tuesday it had recently opened an investigation, adding that it does so “when it has reason to believe that a specific violation occurred or is occurring under Seattle’s labor laws.”

It’s unclear what law, or laws, government officials believe Amazon may have violated. But the spokesperson for the Office of Labor Standards said it opened the investigation under new ordinances put in place to give gig workers more of the same protections that companies offer employees.

That includes the Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance, or PSST, which requires companies provide paid time off for app-based workers to take care of themselves and their families, including for doctor’s visits, school closures or other health and safety reasons.

Those protections were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and later codified into law. The ordinance went into effect in May 2023 for food delivery companies using app-based workers and expanded to include all app-based workers at companies with more than 250 workers in January.

In its note to workers, Amazon said “we remain confident we are in compliance with all laws and regulations, including Seattle PSST, and are committed to transparency and cooperation throughout the process.”

Amazon confirmed to The Times on Wednesday that the Office of Labor Standards is investigating Amazon Logistics to ensure compliance with paid sick and safe time accrual under the PSST ordinance.

Amazon Logistics isn’t the only company feeling the impact of the ordinance.

In August 2023, the Office of Labor Standards found DoorDash violated the ordinance by failing to establish a system for workers to request and use paid time off, provide timely compensation to gig workers for use of that time and give workers monthly notice of their PSST balances. DoorDash paid $1.6 million as a result of the investigation.

In March, Instacart agreed to pay nearly $750,000 to settle allegations it failed to comply with the same ordinance. The Office of Labor Standards accused Instacart of failing to allow drivers who had been deactivated from the platform to use their accrued time off and failing to provide accurate compensation rates when telling workers how much time they had accrued.

The Office of Labor Standards says on its website that most investigations are resolved in a settlement agreement.

2024 The Seattle Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Former NBC News star Brian Williams is finalizing a deal to anchor live coverage of the presidential election results for Amazon’s Prime Video, in the streamer’s first attempt at live news coverage, according to two people familiar with the plan.

Williams, 65, has been off of television since leaving his professional home of 28 years in 2021. He has spoken with a number of networks and streaming services about projects, but this is the first to come to fruition. He would be in his comfort zone at Prime Video, as he led NBC’s presidential election night programs in 2008 and 2012 and its cable network MSNBC’s coverage in 2016 and 2020.

A representative for Prime Video declined comment. But those briefed on the matter said a deal is imminent.

Deep-pocketed Amazon’s entry into live news coverage will not be a welcome development for the legacy TV networks, which are struggling to maintain their financial footing as audiences shift to streaming. Nearly every news operation is looking to cut costs after the 2024 election.

In recent years, Prime Video has become a powerhouse in live sports by carrying the NFL’s Thursday night games. It will also be the streaming platform for the NBA starting in the 2025–26 season. Live news could be the streamer’s next frontier.

But as of now, the election night program would be a one-time-only event and not part of a larger effort to get Prime Video into the TV news business, according to one person familiar with the discussions.

Amazon executives were persuaded to experiment with news as millions of young viewers who don’t watch traditional TV are expected to participate in the election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Many of them are turning to TikTok and YouTube as information sources.

Prime Video’s election coverage will originate from Amazon’s studio in Culver City and start streaming live starting an hour before the polls close Nov. 5. The plan is to keep Williams on the stream until a winner is called, although there is a possibility of a close race that could take several days to sort out.

Prime Video does not have its own news operation. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, but the newspaper would not be formally involved in the project. Jonathan Wald, a veteran TV news producer and executive who worked closely with Williams at NBC, would oversee the production.

The program would be different from traditional election coverage. The operation supporting Williams would not have a decision desk that examines data and calls winners. Prime Video would depend on the state-by-state calls made by the Associated Press.

Prime Video’s coverage will be closer in style to the nightly MSNBC program “The 11th Hour With Brian Williams,” where the anchor debriefed reporters, historians and pundits on the day’s events. Williams gained a strong following among viewers who tuned in for his sharp wit and breezy conversational approach to topics.

“The 11th Hour” also rehabilitated Williams’ career. He moved to MSNBC in 2015 following a scandal over false statements he made about his experiences covering the Iraq war, which cost him the prestigious anchor position at “NBC Nightly News” he held for 10 years.

2024 Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

After examining local, state and national databases, University of Nebraska–Lincoln researchers have concluded that expanding and enhancing supports for Nebraska’s families is vital to ensure the “good life” for all Nebraska residents.

The team’s analysis found Nebraska families becoming more diverse and complex, due largely to changes in the demographic makeup of the state’s population in recent decades.

With an aging population, evolving immigration and an outward migration of workers seeking jobs elsewhere, keeping up with the changing needs of Nebraska families becomes crucial for promoting health and well-being among current and future generations—and to ensure the state’s economic success.

Lorey Wheeler, director of the Nebraska Academy for Methodology, Analytics and Psychometrics and a research associate professor in the Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools, is the lead author of a new manuscript examining Nebraska families based on state priorities.

Those priorities, identified by a Nebraska Extension needs assessment, include developing a skilled workforce, creating statewide economic vitality, retaining and attracting young people, enhancing health and well-being, and leveraging Nebraska’s strengths for sustained success.

The article, “The 2023 State of Nebraska Families: State Priorities and Key Areas of Promise,” was recently published in Marriage & Family Review, a journal that focuses on research, practice, theories and applications related to marriage.

The manuscript describes Nebraska’s geography, demographics and government contexts and reviews where current state policy, programming and resources stand in addressing family-focused needs and issues of the state’s working-age population.

The Husker team concluded that crafting policy that supports accessible high-quality child care, caregiver supports, and health and well-being across the lifespan would enhance worker and family well-being throughout the state. It would also stem the outward migration of workers to other states and improve personal productivity—bolstering Nebraska’s economic vitality in the process.

“Investing resources in the people most important in a worker’s life—their children, parents and families—is crucial,” Wheeler said. “Addressing geographic and racial disparities in health, and access to health care, are essential issues to address in Nebraska for everyone to feel like it is the ‘good life.'”

Data shows that more than 70% of Nebraska’s children live in households where all adults work, highlighting the need for widespread access to child care and paid medical leave policies.

“The divide between rural and urban communities in infrastructure makes it challenging for people with families in the state to access the supports that they need,” said Patty Kuo, assistant professor of child, youth and family studies and a co-author of the review.

“Policy is behind the reality of the structure of working families. Most families in Nebraska do not have a single-earner household, thus requiring the need for paid medical leave policies and access to child care. The state wants people to work, and we want the state to help people who work.”

Wheeler emphasizes that state workforce retention is vital and that meeting the diverse family needs of Nebraska’s working-age population would help address workers leaving the state in search of opportunities elsewhere.

“Many kids go to college here at UNL and then end up moving to another state for better opportunities for their families,” she said. “The goal is to retain an educated workforce, so it’s necessary to ensure workers currently in Nebraska are adequately supported holistically in their responsibilities to their families.”

Kuo said the data shows a need for innovations in policies and programs to create a healthy environment for families.

“We can’t just solve these problems at an individual level,” she said. “People are embedded in families, and the top reason people leave Nebraska is to find another job, or for their families. We want people to see the direct link between state economic priorities and supporting families.”