Does receiving an earnings supplement affect union formation?: Estimating effects for program participants using propensity score matching

Evaluation Review

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 741-778

  Harknett, Kristen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Marriage; Matching; Propensity score; Single mothers; Welfare

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANADA; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECONOMICS; EMPLOYMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MARRIAGE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SINGLE PARENT; SOCIAL WELFARE; STATISTICS;

ADULT; BRITISH COLUMBIA; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; EMPLOYMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MARRIAGE; MIDDLE AGED; NEW BRUNSWICK; SINGLE PARENT; SOCIAL WELFARE;

EID: 33750732301     PISSN: 0193841X     EISSN: 15523926     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X06293411     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Agodini, R., and M. Dynarski. 2004. Are experiments the only option? A look at dropout prevention programs. Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (1). 180-194.
2. Angrist, J. D., G. W. Imbens, and D. B. Rubin. 1996. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91 (434). 444-455.
3. Becker, G. 1981. A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Berk, R. A., and P. J. Newton. 1985. Does arrest really deter wife battery? An effort to replicate the findings of the Minneapolis spouse abuse experiment. American Sociological Review 50 (2). 253-262.
5. Bloom, D. 1997. After AFDC: Welfare-to-work choices and challenges for states. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
6. Bloom, H., C. Michalopoulos, C. Hill, and Y. Lei. 2002. Can nonexperimental comparison group methods match the findings from a random assignment evaluation of mandatory welfare-to-work programs? MDRC Working Papers on Research Methodology, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York.
7. Bloom, H. S. 1984. Accounting for no-shows in experimental evaluation designs. Evaluation Review 8: 225-246.
8. Bloom, H. S., L. L. Orr, S. H. Bell, G. Cave, F. Doolittle, W. Lin, and J. M. Bos. 1997. The benefits and costs of JTPA title II-a programs: Key findings from the national Job Training Partnership Act study. Journal of Human Resources 32 (3). 549-576.
9. Cain, G. G., and D. A. Wissoker. 1990. A reanalysis of marital stability in the Seattle-Denver income-maintenance experiment. American Journal Of Sociology 95 (5). 1235-1269.
10. Dehejia, R., and S. Wahba. 1998. Propensity score matching methods for non-experimental causal studies. Working Paper 6829, National Bureau of Education Research Working Paper Series, Cambridge, MA.
11. Dickert-Conlin, S., and S. Houser. 2002. EITC and marriage. National Tax Journal 55 (1). 25-40.
12. Dickinson, K. P., T. R. Johnson, and R. W. West. 1986. An analysis of the impact of CETA programs on participants' earnings. Journal of Human Resources 21 (1). 64-91.
13. Dion, M. R. 2005. Healthy marriage programs: Learning what works. Future of Children 15 (2). 139-156.
14. Ellwood, D., and C. Jencks. 2004. The spread of single-parent families in the United States since 1960. In The Future of the Family, ed. D. P. Moynihan, T. M. Smeeding, and L. Rainwater. New York: Russell Sage.
15. England, P., and G. Farkas. 1986. Households, employment, and gender: A social, economic, and demographic view. New York: Aldine.
16. Fein, D., R. A. London, and J. Mauldon. 2002. Welfare reform and family formation: Assessing the effects. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
17. Fraker, T., and R. Maynard. 1987. The adequacy of comparison group designs for evaluations of employment-related programs. Journal of Human Resources 22 (2). 194-227.
18. Friedlander, D., D. H. Greenberg, and P. K. Robins. 1997. Evaluating government training programs for the economically disadvantaged. Journal of Economic Literature 35 (4). 1809-1855.
19. Gennetian, L. A., and V. Knox. 2003. Staying single: The effects of welfare reform policies on marriage and cohabitation. Next Generation Working Paper no. 19, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York.
20. Gennetian, L. A., and V. Knox. 2004. The effects of a Minnesota welfare reform program on marital stability six years later. Population Research And Policy Review 23 (5-6). 567-593.
21. Gibson, C. M. 2003. Privileging the participant: The importance of sub-group analysis in social welfare evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation 24 (4). 443-469.
22. Hannan, M. T., N. B. Tuma, and L. P. Groeneveld. 1978. Income and independence effects on marital dissolution - results from Seattle and Denver income-maintenance experiments. American Journal Of Sociology 84 (3). 611-633.
23. Harknett, K., and L. A. Gennetian. 2003. How an earnings supplement can affect union formation among low-income single mothers. Demography 40 (3). 451-478.
24. Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, J. Smith, and P. Todd. 1998. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66 (5). 1017-1098.
25. Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, and P. E. Todd. 1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies 64 (4). 605-654.
26. Imbens, G. W. 2004. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (1). 4-29.
27. Katz, L. F., J. R. Kling, and J. B. Liebman. 2001. Moving to opportunity in Boston: Early results of a randomized experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (2). 607-654.
28. Kemple, J. J., and J. C. Snipes. 2001. A regression-based strategy for defining subgroups in a social experiment. MDRC Working Papers on Research Methodology, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York.
29. Knab, J. T., J. M. Bos, D. Friedlander, and J. W. Weissman. 2000. Do mandates matter? The effects of a mandate to enter a welfare-to-work program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
30. LaLonde, R. 1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review 76 (4). 604-620.
31. Lewin, A. C. 2005. The effect of economic stability on family stability among welfare recipients. Evaluation Review 29 (3). 223-240.
32. Lichter, D. T., G. Kephart, D. K. McLaughlin, and D. J. Landry. 1992. Race and the retreat from marriage: A shortage of marriageable men? American Sociological Review 57 (6). 781-799.
33. Lin, W., P. K. Robins, D. Card, K. Harknett, and S. Lui-Gurr. 1998. When financial incentives encourage work: Complete 18-month findings from the Self-Sufficiency Project. Ottawa, Canada: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation.
34. Luellen, J. K., W. R. Shadish, and M. H. Clark. 2005. Propensity scores: An introduction and experimental test. Evaluation Review 29 (6). 530-558.
35. Mijanovich, T., and D. Long. 1995. Creating an alternative to welfare: First-year findings on the implementation, welfare impacts, and costs of the Self-Sufficiency Project. Ottawa, Canada: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation.
36. Rosenbaum, P. 1995. Observational studies. New York: Springer-Verlag.
37. Rosenbaum, P., and D. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70: 41-55.
38. Rosenbaum, P., and D. Rubin. 1985. The bias due to incomplete matching. Biometrics 41 (1). 103-116.
39. Rubin, D. B., and N. Thomas. 1996. Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics 52 (1). 249-264.
40. Smith, H. L. 1997. Matching with multiple controls to estimate treatment effects in observational studies. Sociological Methodology 27: 325-353.
41. Wilde, E. T., and R. Hollister. 2002. How close is close enough? Testing nonexperimental estimates of impact against experimental estimates of impact with education test scores as outcomes. IRP Discussion Paper no. 1242-02, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin- Madison.
42. Winship, C., and S. L. Morgan. 1999. The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology 25: 659-706.