Evaluating the differential effects of alternative welfare-to-work training components: A reanalysis of the California GAIN program

Journal of Labor Economics

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 521-566

  Hotz, V Joseph ^a   Imbens, Guido W ^b   Klerman, Jacob A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c RAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748304138     PISSN: 0734306X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/505050     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Abadie, Alberto, and Guido Imbens. 2006. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74, no. 1:235-67.
2. Bloom, Howard, Carolyn J. Hill, and James Riccio. 2005. Modeling cross-site experimental differences to find out why program effectiveness varies. In Learning more from social experiments: Evolving analytic approaches, ed. Howard Bloom. New York: Russell Sage.
3. Couch, Kenneth A. 1992. New evidence on the long-term effects of employment training programs. Journal of Labor Economics 10, no. 4:380-88.
4. Dehejia, Rajeev, and Sadek Wahba. 1999. Causal effects in non-experimental studies: Re-evaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94, no. 448:1053-62.
5. Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, Winston Lin, and Alan Schweder. 1996. The GAIN evaluation: Five-year impacts on employment, earnings, and AFDC receipt. Working Paper 96.1, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York.
6. Friedlander, Daniel, and Gary Burtless. 1995. Five Years After: The Long-Term Effects of Welfare-to-Work Programs. New York: Russell Sage.
7. Friedlander, Daniel, and Philip K. Robins. 1995. Evaluating program evaluations: New evidence on commonly used nonexperimental methods. American Economic Review 85, no. 4:923-37.
8. Gueron, Judith, and Gayle Hamilton. 2002. The role of education and training in welfare reform. Welfare Reform and Beyond Policy Brief no. 22, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
9. Ham, John C., and Robert J. LaLonde. 1996. The effect of sample, selection and initial conditions in duration models: Evidence from experimental data on training. Econometrica. 64, no. 1:175-206.
10. Heckman, James, and V. Joseph Hotz. 1989. Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: The case of manpower training. Journal of the American Statistical Association 84, no. 408:862-80.
11. Heckman, James, Hidehiko Ichimura, Jeffrey Smith, and Petra Todd. 1998. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66, no. 5:1017-98.
12. Heckman, James, Hidehiko Ichimura, and Petra Todd. 1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies 64, no. 4:605-54.
13. _. 1998. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies 65, no. 2:261-94.
14. Heckman, James, Robert LaLonde, and Jeffrey Smith. 1999. The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In Handbook of labor economics, vol. 3A, ed. Orley Ashenfelter and David Card. New York: Elsevier Science.
15. Heckman, James, and Richard Robb. 1985. Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions. In Longitudinal analysis of labor market data, ed. James Heckman and Burton Singer. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Hirano, Keisuke, Guido Imbens, and Geert Ridder. 2003. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 71, no. 4:1161-89.
17. Hogan, Lyn A. 1995. Jobs, not JOBS: What it takes to put welfare recipients to work. Policy briefing, Democratic Leadership Council, Washington, DC.
18. Hotz, V. Joseph, Guido Imbens, and Jacob Klerman. 2000. The long-term gains from GAIN: A re-analysis of the impacts of the California GAIN program. Working Paper no. 8007, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
19. Hotz, V. Joseph, Guido Imbens, and Julie Mortimer. 2005. Predicting the efficacy of future training programs using past experiences. Journal of Econometrics 124:241-70.
20. Hoynes, Hilary. 2000. Local labor markets and welfare spells: Do demand conditions matter? Review of Economics and Statistics 73, no. 3:351-68.
21. Imbens, Guido. 2000. The role of the propensity score in estimation dose-response functions. Biometrika 87, no. 3:706-10.
22. LaLonde, Robert. 1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review 76, no. 4:604-20.
23. Lechner, Michael. 2001. Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. In Econometric evaluation of labour market policies, ed. Michael Lechner and Friedhelm Pfeiffer. Heidelberg: Physica/Springer.
24. Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Education, experience, and earnings. New York: Columbia University Press.
25. Mitnik, Oscar. 2004. Differential effects of welfare to work programs: Identification with unknown treatment status. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Miami (May).
26. Riccio, James, and Daniel Friedlander. 1992. GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
27. Riccio, James, Daniel Friedlander, and Stephen Freedman. 1994. GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
28. Riccio, James, Barbara Goldman, Gayle Hamilton, Karin Martinson, and Alan Orenstein. 1989. GAIN: Early implementation experiences and lessons. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
29. Rosenbaum, Paul. 1987. The role of a second control group in an observational study. Statistical Science 2, no. 3:292-316.
30. Rubin, Donald. 1973a. Matching to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics 29:159-83.
31. _. 1973b. The use of matched sampling and regression adjustments to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics 29:185-203.
32. _. 1977. Assignment to treatment group on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational Statistics 2, no. 1:1-26.
33. _. 1979. Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74:318-28.
34. Smith, Jeffrey, and Petra Todd. 2005. Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of non-experimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics 125:305-53.