Journal of Policy Analysis and Management最新文献

{"title":"Private School Choice Programs Should and Will Continue to Expand","authors":"Patrick J. Wolf","doi":"10.1002/pam.70068","DOIUrl":"10.1002/pam.70068","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Douglas Harris has written a cogent essay arguing that universal voucher and ESA programs are undesirable because public charter schools are better. While I disagree with Harris on several key points, I begin by emphasizing our areas of agreement.</p><p>We agree that public charter schools have a strong record of improving academic outcomes, especially for disadvantaged students. We agree that accountability tests sometimes fail to align with the curriculum taught to students, complicating comparisons between groups across time and school sectors. We agree that the ability of private schools to teach religion gives them an advantage relative to secular public schools. We agree that “public accountability is about more than just test scores. It is about ensuring that schools instill common language, values like tolerance, and belief in democracy” (Harris <span>2025</span>). We agree that expanding private school choice programs in the form of vouchers and ESAs increases freedom, axiomatically.</p><p>We agree that Levin's four-criterion evaluation scheme is useful for assessing the desirability of expanding private school choice. We tend to disagree on the evidence that is most relevant to the application of Levin's criteria, and how to characterize and interpret that evidence.</p><p>Harris claims that statewide voucher programs in Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio provide the best evidence regarding the likely effects of universal private school choice programs. Florida certainly is highly relevant, as it serves over half a million choice students, recently converted its voucher programs to ESAs, and is a model for many states, given its 28 years of experience publicly funding private schooling. The experiences of Indiana and Ohio are less instructive than those of Florida, since the Hoosier and Buckeye states are two of only three states with universal school voucher programs, the other being North Carolina. A total of 14 states combine universal eligibility with the more flexible ESA policy model, with Arizona the earliest adopter of that now popular approach.</p><p>The least relevant program for forecasting the future effects of universal ESAs is the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). The LSP was a highly regulated school voucher program limited to low-income students. It was repealed and replaced with the Louisiana GATOR universal ESA program in 2025. The LSP taught policymakers how not to design and implement a private school choice program (Wolf <span>2019</span>). They have taken those lessons to heart, rendering the disappointing participant effects from my team's evaluation of the LSP the least informative findings for predicting the outcomes of current and future private school choice programs.</p><p>Since no private school choice program designed like the universal ESAs proliferating across the country has been rigorously evaluated, I draw the evidence for my assessment from all the voucher and ESA evaluations, via meta-analyse","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.70068","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145397389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How will universal school vouchers and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) change American schooling?","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/pam.70067","DOIUrl":"10.1002/pam.70067","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145397388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Standard Empirical Policy Analysis Does Not Support Universal Vouchers/ESAs","authors":"Douglas N. Harris","doi":"10.1002/pam.70071","DOIUrl":"10.1002/pam.70071","url":null,"abstract":"<p>At least 17 states have adopted school vouchers combined with “education savings accounts” (ESAs) that are nearly universal in student and school eligibility—just since 2020. These policies allow families to use government funds to pay for tuition at essentially any in-person private school, including religious schools, and to use the funds to pay for qualified educational expenses, such as tutors and computers. The funding, while still below that of neighborhood public schools (NPSs),1 is substantial, ranging from about $7000 to $10,000 per pupil annually.</p><p>The terms that the program's supporters use have created confusion about the program design. The term “savings account” is common and it is partially accurate in the sense that the funds are paid to providers from accounts created in students' and family names, but the first word also implies that families contribute from their own savings. Some of the state policies are also called “scholarships,” implying that they are based on academic merit. But these are neither savings accounts nor scholarships. Because these policies couple school vouchers with ESAs, it is more apt to think of them as super-vouchers. I will just call them “vouchers/ESAs” for purposes here.</p><p>The fact that vouchers/ESAs combine two types of policies complicates the analysis. As I explain, the voucher element allows schools to discriminate against certain students, entwines government with religion, involves a large fiscal cost, and has shown fairly poor, or at best inconclusive, academic results. Home and virtual schooling, funded by the ESA element, do not suffer much from the first three problems but seem to generate even worse academic outcomes. Despite their differences, this Point-Counterpoint combines the debates because vouchers/ESAs are currently being adopted as a package.</p><p>As in any policy debate, we must also consider the policy alternatives. Since the early 1990s, the status quo of American education, originally built on NPSs, has been transformed into a multifaceted system that already has many forms of school choice. Almost one third of American K–12 students no longer attended their NPSs <i>before</i> the recent voucher/ESA push (Harris et al. <span>2017</span>; USDOE <span>2018</span>). In addition to tuition-paying private schools, the modern American school system already includes almost 8000 charter schools,2 homeschooling3 supported by subsidized virtual charter schools,4 and open enrollment that allows students to attend public schools outside their attendance zones and school districts. Whether vouchers are wise relative to NPSs is still a legitimate debate, but today's debate is really about whether we should continue to expand public school choice or expand religious and other private school choice.</p><p>In assessing these policy alternatives, I adopt the well-known voucher evaluation framework by Levin (<span>2002</span>), which includes two criteria common to almost any empiri","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.70071","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145397270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Choice of Policy Comparisons and Relevant Evidence and Approach to Selection Bias Are Keys to the Debate","authors":"Douglas N. Harris","doi":"10.1002/pam.70069","DOIUrl":"10.1002/pam.70069","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Patrick Wolf and I use the same framework for evaluating universal vouchers/ESAs, from Levin (&lt;span&gt;2002&lt;/span&gt;), but we come to different conclusions. Why is that? In my view, this is because I disagree with his choices about the counterfactual policies and the relevant evidence, and his interpretation of that evidence with respect to selection bias. All of this is at the heart of the debate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;First, his counterfactual is not the status quo. His analysis includes references to the public education system as it was all the way back in the mid-1800s. Some of his analysis might have been reasonable up through the early 1990s but the choice landscape changed long ago. More than a third of students were attending schools other than their neighborhood public schools &lt;i&gt;before&lt;/i&gt; the recent cascade of vouchers, mostly because of expanding public school open enrollment, charter schools, and publicly supported virtual/homeschooling. Given these recent and significant expansions of public school choice, it is difficult to see why we would compare universal vouchers to a form of universal traditional public education that has faded away.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Such a comparison seems like a straw man and significantly changes the interpretation of evidence. Public school choice programs, as I explained in my initial essay, seem to have some of the same advantages as vouchers (e.g., positive competitive effects), while also avoiding some of their disadvantages (e.g., social cohesion and negative achievement participation effects).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now, consider the evidence on vouchers. Wolf's summary averages the modest positive average treatment effects of small-scale, targeted programs with the negative effects of more relevant statewide programs. Two issues arise here, the first being the central role of eligibility targeting. Almost every study in Wolf's review pertains to programs targeted to low-income students. But the policy we are debating is &lt;i&gt;universal&lt;/i&gt; school vouchers. This is a problem because, as I explained, there is a general research consensus that school choice works better for disadvantaged students (Chen and Harris &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;; Cohodes and Roy &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). This means almost all the studies he is citing are overly optimistic about the effects we can expect from universal voucher programs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To reinforce his argument, Wolf quotes Howard Fuller as saying, “School choice is widespread in America, unless you are poor.” Setting aside that this quote is also dated (see above on increasingly widespread public school choice), this raises the question, if the goal were to increase choice for disadvantaged students, then why not target the program to those students? A more reasonable case can be made for a targeted program than for universal programs, given the targeted programs are more effective and less costly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The word “universal” with today's vouchers also signals the programs’ lack of geographic boundaries. Until the last decade, ess","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.70069","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145397391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond borders: Does firm-level exposure to state and local paid sick leave mandates lead to intra-firm spillovers?","authors":"Daniel Schneider,&nbsp;Kristen Harknett","doi":"10.1002/pam.70061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.70061","url":null,"abstract":"<p>States and localities have passed labor standards to raise the floor on job quality, including mandating employer provision of paid sick leave (PSL). However, contemporary political polarization makes the enactment of national labor standards and of state standards in many states unlikely. Prior literature has examined how labor standards may “spill over” spatially to affect firms, jobs, and workers in nearby places who are not covered by labor standards. We motivate and empirically examine the potential for “intra-firm spillovers.” We argue that multi-state firms facing a patchwork of labor standards may align company labor practices with the most stringent regulatory environments that they face given the geographic distribution of their establishments. To test this possibility, we take advantage of new employer–employee linked data from The Shift Project and focus on the case of paid sick leave. We find that state and local paid sick leave mandates spillover through multi-state employers to provide workers in places without mandates effective access to paid sick leave, and these findings survive a placebo test using other fringe benefits. Companies act as conduits through which the reach of local mandates that raise the floor on job quality are expanded to a broader set of workers.</p>","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.70061","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145366673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Inferring the value of short-staffed public sector jobs: Federal budgets and military fighter pilots","authors":"Scott Farrow,&nbsp;Peter B. Doeringer","doi":"10.1002/pam.70060","DOIUrl":"10.1002/pam.70060","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study uses a novel framework based on the “negotiated staffing equilibrium” between governmental agencies and governing bodies to estimate the net benefits of increasing employment in public sector occupations that experience chronic labor shortages. The marginal values of these labor inputs, as perceived by the parties during budget negotiations, are inferred from information on the cost and productivity of labor in short supply compared to those values at the funded equilibrium employment level. If labor is not in short supply, then the net marginal benefits are either zero or negative. This model can be parameterized by elasticities and informed by principles of derived demand. The example of U.S. Air Force fighter pilots is used to illustrate the methodology because this occupation has frequently been understaffed, and the benefits of military staffing have generally been assumed to be intractable to value. The estimates here of the annual marginal net benefit of these fighter pilots is about $1.02 million, based on pilot shortages as of 2017. Eliminating that shortage would yield $458 million in additional net benefits. The results from estimating this model can inform labor allocations, budget debates and provide input values for decision-making tools such as benefit-cost analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145282673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"44th Year Data","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/pam.70051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.70051","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"44 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145122648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH ARTICLES","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/pam.70037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.70037","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"44 4","pages":"1147-1152"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145122616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Have U.S. gun buyback programs misfired?","authors":"Toshio Ferrazares,&nbsp;Joseph J. Sabia,&nbsp;D. Mark Anderson","doi":"10.1002/pam.70045","DOIUrl":"10.1002/pam.70045","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gun buyback programs (GBPs), which use public funds to purchase civilians' privately-owned firearms, aim to reduce gun violence. However, next to nothing is known about their effects on firearm-related crime or deaths. Using data from the National Incident Based Reporting System, we find no evidence that GBPs reduce gun crime. Given our estimated null findings, with 95% confidence, we can rule out decreases in firearm-related crime of greater than 1.2% during the year following a buyback. Using data from the National Vital Statistics System, we also find no evidence that GBPs reduce suicides or homicides where a firearm was involved. These results call into question the efficacy of city gun buyback programs in their current form.</p>","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"44 4","pages":"1211-1249"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144924420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Agrarian Elites and Democracy in Latin America by Belén Fernández Milmanda. Cambridge University Press, 2025, 257 pp., $41.99 (paperback).","authors":"Ana Thais Dias Safe Carneiro","doi":"10.1002/pam.70048","DOIUrl":"10.1002/pam.70048","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"45 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144927830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}