A research context for welfare reform

Responsibility for the social safety net continues to “devolve” from the federal to state governments, and many states are now confronting the dilemmas inherent in redesigning welfare—dilemmas that faced Congress, too, as it sought to impose new conditions on receipt of public assistance. This article argues that reforming AFDC is difficult because the public has conflicting goals: putting welfare recipients to work; protecting their children from severe poverty; and controlling costs. For 25 years, reformers have viewed requiring welfare recipients to participate in work-promoting programs as uniquely able to balance these goals. Numerous studies have shown that this approach modestly increased employment and reduced welfare costs. More substantial gains have been achieved by some “mixed-strategy” programs, which stress immediate job entry for some recipients and employment-directed education or training for others. Many people remain on the rolls, however, prompting some policymakers to argue for substituting work-for-benefits or community service work (“workfare”) for welfare after a certain period of time, and others for ending all support. The limited knowledge about work-for-benefits programs suggests that, in contrast to work-promoting activities, this approach ultimately costs money. The research record confirms that there are no easy answers in welfare reform, and that states will have to weigh the trade-offs in considering alternative strategies.     

Detracking America's schools: Equity at zero cost?

Schools across the country are ending the practice of grouping students based on ability, in part, because of research indicating that tracking hurts low-ability students without helping students of other ability levels. Using a nationally representative survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, (NCES) we reexamine the impact of tracking on high school student achievement through the estimation of a standard education production function. This approach allows us to control for the possibility that track is correlated with factors such as class size and teacher education. In addition, we address the possibility that there are unobserved student or school characteristics that affect both achievement and track placement. Our results indicate that abolishing tracking in America's schools would have a large positive impact on achievement for students currently in the lower tracks, but that this increase in achievement would come at the expense of students in upper-track classes.