Why Government Needs More Randomized Controlled Trials: Refuting The Myths

The Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) today released a policy brief focused on the value and benefits of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Such trials are widely recognized as the gold standard in scientific research. However, some critics have claimed that they are often expensive, time-consuming, unethical, or not worth the trouble. These objections are almost always overstated or false. In this brief LJAF Vice President of Research Integrity Stuart Buck and LJAF Vice President of Public Accountability Josh McGee explain why RCTs are so valuable, why they are sometimes misunderstood, and why many common objections should be given little weight.The brief addresses seven specific myths about RCTs:RCTs are expensive and slowRCTs are often unethicalRCTs are limited to narrow contexts or questionsRCTs are a black boxRCTs are not suited to complex, fast-changing programsRCTs can still be biasedRCTs are too limitedBy clarifying the value and importance of rigorous evaluation, LJAF aims to help governments use evidence to inform policies and programs that produce meaningful improvements in people's lives

Pension Litigation Summary

State and municipal pension systems are in financial trouble. According to a 2012 Pew Center on the States report, state pension plans estimate that they were collectively $757 billion short of the funding needed to meet the pension promises that had, as of that publication, been made to public employees. Moreover, that figure depends on a risky set of assumptions (e.g., expected rate of return and life expectancy) and may be considerably larger if reality does not match the predictions made by each system. Estimates produced using more conservative assumptions, similar to those used for private sector pensions, approximately double the shortfall.Regardless of the exact size of projected deficits, rising annual pension costs have already spurred financial distress in many jurisdictions. For instance, Central Falls, Rhode Island, recently declared municipal bankruptcy because of unaffordable pension costs. In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has pointed out that the city faces$20 billion in unfunded liabilities and will soon spend a staggering $1.2 billion per year solely on pension costs, or roughly 22 percent of Chicago's entire budget. As Mayor Emanuel stated, "Our taxpayers cannot afford to choose between pensions and police officers, or pensions and paved streets."In light of looming deficits, states and municipalities across the country are taking steps to reform their pension systems. While some reforms are relatively modest, a few jurisdictions have enacted comprehensive reforms that aim to solve their pension problems permanently. Enacted reforms generally have addressed the following: cost-of-living adjustments, increases in retirement age and contribution rates, and establishment of defined contribution, cash balance and hybrid plans

TELRIC vs. Universal Service: A Takings Violation?

While the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has had a profound positive impact on many sectors of the communications industry in the United States, local phone companies have recently faced a serious dilemma under a provision of the Act known as TELRIC. In this article, Stuart Buck presents a current analysis of the position of the telephone company and its struggle to meet costs under the TELRIC structure. The author argues that by forcing regional phone operators to grant wholesale pricing to competitors under TELRIC, while simultaneously maintaining Universal Service requirements of reduced-rate phone access to remote customers, the local phone companies may be unable to remain profitable. The first section of this article analyzes the history and nature of TELRIC. This discussion is followed by a review of Universal Service Fee requirements from state and federal perspectives. The author concludes by explaining the potential strengths and weaknesses associated with “Takings Clause” lawsuits and the ways in which such lawsuits may prove to be beneficial for struggling telephone companies

Pasture dieback: Past activities and current situation across Queensland (2017).

Over the last 5 years (2012-17), an increasing area of grass pastures, both sown and native, have been dying in patches across multiple districts in eastern Queensland. Symptoms are the same or similar to buffel grass dieback that was first observed in the early 1990’s, that is yellowing and reddening of leaves, stunting and eventual death. Once the pasture has died, the area is typically colonised by a range of broadleaf plants, including weeds, small shrubs, legumes or other (generally undesirable) grasses. Graziers with pastures impacted by this condition have grave concerns about the progressive destruction of pastures, and are looking for answers to ensure the long-term profitability of businesses. The term ‘dieback’ has been used to describe a range of conditions with unrelated causal agents across a broad range of plant types, including trees, shrubs, legumes and grass pastures. While an array of literature has been published about dieback in plant communities, there are relatively few publications specifically outlining dieback in pasture systems utilised by grazing animals (beef and dairy cattle, sheep). A range of pathogens have been identified as causes of dieback in other plants, including fungal root and leaf diseases, and a range of these have been isolated from plant samples affected by pasture dieback in central Queensland. Recent plant testing, and past research including a PhD study, have been unable to determine the causal agent or define the contributing factor(s) of dieback in central Queensland pastures. It is possible that the condition is a complex interaction of multiple contributing factors, for example plant pathogens, insects, soil fertility and moisture stress. Approximately 120 landholders have reported pasture dieback on their properties, and about 35,000ha of pastures are known to be affected, spanning from south-east Queensland, Burnett, central Queensland, Mackay/Whitsunday and North Queensland (as of July 2017). While the entire 35,000ha is not completely affected as generally patches of pasture are affected across this area, the actual area affected is likely to be significantly higher than this due to not all reports being captured by Department of Agriculture and Fisheries staff and other industry organisations. Also, many graziers are unfamiliar with the disease and therefore don’t realise they have pasture dieback, and anecdotal reports indicate some graziers are reluctant to tell authorities they have the disease due to biosecurity concerns, or the potential of land de-valuation by banks. The development and funding of a research project to investigate pasture dieback is a high priority, due to the rapidly expanding area of affected pastures across Queensland being reported and the uncertainty of the cause. There has been relatively little research on pasture dieback in the past compared to the value of the sown grasses being affected. Past research relied on modest budgets, focussed on only a few sites and did not investigate all the possible causal agents. Future research needs to build on past studies where possible, however a coordinated, systematic approach using a multi-disciplinary team is required to provide a better chance of determining what the causal agent(s) are and what the best management practices are likely to be. In total, five priorities for future research, development and extension have been identified. These include: 1. Understanding the extent of the condition, now and into the future; 2. Determining specific details of outbreaks and commonalities across sites; 3 Determining causal factor(s); 4. Determining management solutions; 5. Engaging with industry. Currently, such as proposal that addresses these priorities is under consideration by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA)

An Analysis of the Legal Obstacles to State Pension Reform

Public pension systems are underfunded, straining state budgets. Historically, many states have presumed that they can modify pension benefits only as to newly-hired employees, and that they must leave benefit accruals untouched for current workers. More recently, though, states have begun enacting more fundamental pension reform that modifies future accruals or even reduces cost-of-living allowances for retirees. Nearly all such new reforms have been the subject of one or more lawsuits alleging that the federal and/or state constitution bars the legislature from reducing benefits or accrual patterns. This dissertation examines the legal underpinnings for arguments made against pension reform, and suggests that constitutional doctrine ought to allow pension systems to be reformed in ways that protect past benefit accruals while reorganizing future benefit accruals in a way that is fairer to younger and more mobile workers. That theory is consistent with contract law and constitutional principles. The dissertation then moves to the real challenge, which is how to apply that theory in particular cases, such as contribution increases, cost of living reductions, retirement age increases, or the establishment of a different pension system entirely. In such cases, it is not always immediately obvious what it means to protect past accruals but allow modifications to future accruals. Given that neither state nor federal judges are pension specialists, courts may benefit from a closer examination of a wide variety of pension reforms

Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding Principles for Constitution Challenges to Uninterpreted State Statutes

When a federal court is asked to declare an uninterpreted state law to be unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, it faces several tensions. On one side, the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines urge the court to strike down the statute on its face. On the other side, the related doctrines of constitutional avoidance, narrowing interpretations, abstention and certification all urge the court to find some way to save the statute at least as to some applications. But because of the cardinal principle that federal courts are not the final authority on the interpretation of state law, many federal courts err on the side of facial invalidation, thinking that any narrowing interpretation or abstention might be pointless. This was especially prevalent in the federal courts\u27 handling of the 20 or so partial-birth abortion cases, in which many different federal courts heard challenges to state laws that were largely drafted on the same model. Using this set of cases as an example, we examine how federal courts handled the doctrinal tensions, and suggest ways for federal courts to prevent unconstitutional applications without using the strong remedy of facial invalidation. Specifically, we argue that federal courts in overbreadth/vagueness cases - which are facial challenges - have the same power that they do in as-applied challenges to limit the scope and applicability of a state statute. We argue that federal courts should consider a more prominent use of this power to avoid overly interfering with state laws

Putting Teaching to the Test to the Test: Is This Really a Problem in Arkansas?

Arkansas’s state standardized tests have changed over the past few years. Since the ACTAAP legislation of 1999, Arkansas students have taken criterion-referenced Benchmark Tests based on the state’s curricular standards along with national norm-referenced exams each year. Prior to 2004, students in grades 4, 6, and 8 were administered the Benchmark tests in Mathematics and in English Language Arts. Starting in 2005, the odd-numbered grades were added so that students in grades 3-8 took the week-long Benchmark tests, in accordance with the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind act

Fertilising for yield and quality in sown grass pastures and forage crops

Sown pasture rundown and declining soil fertility for forage crops are too serious to ignore with losses in beef production of up to 50% across Queensland. The feasibility of using strategic applications of nitrogen (N) fertiliser to address these losses was assessed by analysing a series of scenarios using data drawn from published studies, local fertiliser trials and expert opinion. While N fertilser can dramatically increase productivity (growth, feed quality and beef production gains of over 200% in some scenarios), the estimated economic benefits, derived from paddock level enterprise budgets for a fattening operation, were much more modest. In the best-performing sown grass scenarios, average gross margins were doubled or tripled at the assumed fertiliser response rates, and internal rates of return of up to 11% were achieved. Using fertiliser on forage sorghum or oats was a much less attractive option and, under the paddock level analysis and assumptions used, forages struggled to be profitable even on fertile sites with no fertiliser input. The economics of nitrogen fertilising on grass pasture were sensitive to the assumed response rates in both pasture growth and liveweight gain. Consequently, targeted research is proposed to re-assess the responses used in this analysis, which are largely based on research 25-40 years ago when soils were generally more fertile and pastures less rundown