Controlling federal expenditures in the national school lunch program: The relationship between changes in household eligibility and federal policy

Under the assumption of widespread fraud and abuse, procedures were implemented in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) in 1981 to detect and deter misreporting by applicants for subsidized meal benefits. We, however, find that the incidence of fraud is actually small relative to normal temporal variation in income and household composition that leads to legitimate changes in eligibility for benefits. It is estimated that each month about 3 percent of all households approved for meal benefits have changes sufficiently large to alter their benefit status. Further, the amount of misreporting at the time of application, estimated to be 4.8 percent, is far smaller than previously assumed. Instead of focusing on the static problem of deterring initial applicant misreporting, the policy problem is now a dynamic one that includes how (or whether) to deal with normal changes in income and household size.     

School Vouchers and Student Outcomes: Experimental Evidence from Washington,DC

School vouchers are the most contentious form of parental school choice. Vouchers provide government funds that parents can use to send their children to private schools of their choice. Here we examine the empirical question of whether or not a school voucher program in Washington, DC, affected achievement or the rate of high school graduation for participating students. The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) has operated in the nation's capital since 2004, funded by a federal government appropriation. Because the program was oversubscribed in its early years of operation, and vouchers were awarded by lottery, we were able to use the “gold standard” evaluation method of a randomized experiment to determine what impacts the OSP had on student outcomes. Our analysis revealed compelling evidence that the DC voucher program had a positive impact on high school graduation rates, suggestive evidence that the program increased reading achievement, and no evidence that it affected math achievement. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of recent policy developments including the reauthorization of the OSP and the enactment or expansion of more than a dozen school voucher or voucher‐type programs throughout the United States in 2011 and 2012.     

The national evaluation of the food stamp employment and training program

This article reports the results of the national evaluation of the Food Stamp Employment and Training (E&T) Program, based on an experimental study involving over 13,000 program participants in 53 separate local food stamp agencies. The story told by these findings begins with the types of individuals who participated in the E&T Program in FY 1988. Nearly 70 percent did not have children (removing this barrier to finding employment), and about half were single, highly mobile adults living alone. Most received no public assistance other than food stamps. For the most part, then, these were individuals who needed to work—food stamp benefits are not intended to meet total subsistence needs. It would, therefore, be expected that most of the E&T participants would be looking for work (whether or not they were successful) in the absence of E&T requirements. Next, it is apparent that large numbers of E&T participants did not engage in employment or training services in FY 1988. As currently structured, beyond imposing the obligation to meet the requirements of E&T, the program failed to provide any actual services to about half of those deemed eligible to participate. For the most part, the services received by E&T participants consisted primarily of referral to individual job search. In the absence of E&T, many of the individuals currently targeted by the program were able to obtain similar referrals on their own. Consequently, it is not surprising, that E&T was found to have no effect on participants' employment and earnings, and only a relatively small effect on average food stamp benefits.