Curbing cream-skimming: Evidence on enrolment incentives

Labour Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 643-655

  Courty, Pascal ^a   Kim, Do Han ^b   Marschke, Gerald ^c,d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

^b Kyung Hee University   (South Korea)

^c STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^d NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^e IZA ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

Bureaucrat behavior; Cream skimming; Enrolment incentives; Performance measurement; Performance standard; Public organizations

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052266441     PISSN: 09275371     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.labeco.2011.01.007     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Anderson Kathryn, Burkhauser Richard, Raymond Jennie The effect of creaming on placement rates under the Job Training Partnership Act. Industrial and Labor Relation Review 1993, 46(4):613-624.
2. Barnow Burt The effects of performance standards on state and local programs: lessons for the job opportunities and basic skills programs. Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs 1992, 277-309. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. M. Charles, G. Irwin (Eds.).
3. Barnow Burt, Constantine J. Using Performance Management to Encouraging Services to Hard-to-Serve Individuals in JTPA 1988, National Commission for Employment Policy Research Report.
4. Barnow Burt, Heinrich Carolyn J. One standard fits all? The pros and cons of performance standard adjustments. Public Administration Review 2010, 70(1):60-71.
5. Barnow Burt, Smith Jeffery Performance management of U.S. job training programs: lessons from the Job Training Partnership Act. Public Finance and Management 2004, 4(3):247-287.
6. Berne Robert Relative School-Level Performance Measures for Elementary and Middle Schools in New York City 1989, Urban Research Center, New York University, New York.
7. Bevan Gwyn, Hood Christopher What's measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English Public Health Care System. Public Administration 2006, 84:517-538.
8. Bouckaert Geert Measurement and meaningful management. Public Productivity and Management Review 1993, 17(1):31-43.
9. Brooks Arthur C. The use and misuse of adjusted performance measures. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2002, 19(2):323-334.
10. Bruttel Oliver Delivering active labor market policy through vouchers: experiences with training vouchers in Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences 2005, 71(3):391-404.
11. Buchner Florian, Wasem Jürgen Needs for further improvement: risk adjustment in the German health insurance system. Health Policy 2003, 65:21-35.
12. Burgess Simon, Propper Carol, Ratto Marisa, Tominey Emma Incentives in the public sector: some preliminary evidence from a UK government agency. CEPR Discussion Papers 4010 2003.
13. Clotfelter Charles T., Ladd Helen F. Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. Holding Schools Accountable: Performance Based Reforms in Education 1996, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. H.F. Ladd (Ed.).
14. Courty Pascal, Heinrich Carolyn, Marschke Gerald Setting the standard in performance measurement systems. International Public Management Journal 2005, 8(3):1-27.
15. Courty Pascal, Marschke Gerald Performance funding in federal agencies: a case study of a federal job training program. Public Budgeting and Finance 2003, 23(3):22-48.
16. Cragg Michael Performance incentives in the public sector: evidence from the Job Training Partnership Act. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 1997, 13(1):147-168.
17. Dickinson Katherine P., West Richard W., Kogan Deborah J., Drury David A., Franks Marlene S., Schlichtmann Laura, Vencill Mary Evaluation of the effects of JTPA performance standards on clients, services, and costs. National Commission for Employment Policy Research Report No. 88-16 1988.
18. Dranove David, Kessler Daniel, McClellan Mark, Satterthwaite Mark Is more information better? The effects of report cards on cardiovascular providers and consumers. Journal of Political Economy 2003, 11:555-588.
19. Finn Dan Differential Pricing in Contracted Out Employment Programmes: Review of International Evidence, Research Report 2009, Department for Work and Pensions, London, UK.
20. Gore A.l. Creating a government that works better & costs less. Report of the National Performance Review 1993, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
21. Haney Walt The myth of the Texas Miracle in education. Education Analysis Policy Archives 2000, 8(41). [On-line, downloaded 8/19/10]. Available:. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/432/828.
22. Heckman James, Heinrich Carolyn, Smith Jeffrey The performance of performance standards. The Journal of Human Resources 2002, 37(4):778-811.
23. The Performance of Performance Standards 2011, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Press, Kalamazoo, MI. J. Heckman, C. Heinrich, P. Courty, G. Marschke, J. Smith (Eds.).
24. Heckman James, Smith Jeffrey The determinants of participation in a social program: evidence from JTPA. Journal of Labor Economics 2004, 22(2):243-298.
25. Heckman James, Smith Jeffrey Do the determinants of program participation provide evidence of cream-skimming?. The Performance of Performance Standards 2011, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Press, Kalamazoo, MI. J.J. Heckman, C. Heinrich, P. Courty, G. Marschke, J. Smith (Eds.).
26. Heckman James, Smith Jeffrey, Taber Christopher What do bureaucrats do? The effects of performance standards and bureaucratic preferences on acceptance in the JTPA program. Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Growth, Volume 7, Reinventing Government and the Problem of Bureaucracy 1996, 191-218. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn. L. Gary (Ed.).
27. Heinrich Carolyn Improving public-sector performance management: one step forward, two steps back?. Public Finance and Management 2004, 4(3):317-351.
28. Iezzoni Lisa I., Ash Arlene S., Shwartz Michael, Daley Jennifer, Hughes John S., Mackieman Yevgenia D. Judging Hospitals by Severity-Adjusted Mortality Rates: The Influence of the Severity-Adjustment Method. American Journal of Public Health 1996, 86(10):1379-1387.
29. Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes 2003, Health Administration Press, Chicago. Third ed. L.I. Iezzoni (Ed.).
30. Jacob Brian Accountability, incentives and behavior: the impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics 2005, 89(5-6):761-796.
31. Johnston Janet W. The Job Training Partnership Act: A Report by the National Commission for Employment Policy 1987, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
32. Koenig Lane, Fields Errol L., Dall Timothy M., Ameen Ansari Z., Harwood Henrick J. Using Case-Mix Adjustment Methods to Measure the Effectiveness of Substance Abuse Treatment: Three Examples Using Client Employment Outcomes 2000, National Evaluation Data Services.
33. Kravchuk Robert, Schack Ronald Designing effective performance measurement systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review 1996, 56(4):348-358.
34. Ladd Helen F. The Dallas School Accountability and Incentive Program: an evaluation of its impacts on student outcomes. Economics of Education Review 1999, 18(1):1-16.
35. Mukamel Dana B., Ladd Heather, Weimer David L., Spector William D., Zinn Jacqueline S. Is there evidence of cream skimming among nursing homes following the publication of the Nursing Home Compare report card?. The Gerontologist 2009, 49(6):793-802.
36. National Academy of Public Administration Performance Monitoring and Reporting by Public Organizations 1991, NAPA, Washington, D.C.
37. Osborne David, Gaebler Ted Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector 1992, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
38. Rubenstein Ross, Schwartz Amy Ellen, Stiefel Leanna Better than raw: a guide to measuring organizational performance with adjusted performance measures. Public Administration Review 2003, 63(5):607-615.
39. Siedlecki Joe, King Christopher J. Approaches to adjusting workforce development performance measures. Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, Occasional Brief Series, 1(2) 2005.
40. Social Policy Research Associates Guide to JTPA Performance Standards for Program Years 1998 and 1999 1999, Social Policy Research Associates, Menlo Park, Calif.
41. Stiefel Leanna, Rubenstein Ross, Schwartz Amy E. Using adjusted performance measures for evaluating resource use. Public Budgeting and Finance 1999, 19(3):67-87.
42. Stiefel Leanna, Schwartz Amy E., Rubenstein Ross, Zabel Jefrrey Measuring School Performance and Efficiency: Implications for Practice and Research 2005, Eye on Education, Inc., NY.
43. Trott Charles E., Baj John Development of JTPA Title II-A Performance Standards: Models for the States of Region V 1987, James Bell Associates, Arlington, VA.
44. U.S. General Accounting Office Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-04-657 2004, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
45. U.S. Department of Labor Guide to Setting JTPA Title II-A Performance Standards for PY 87 1987, Employment and Training Administration, Washington, D.C.
46. U.S. Department of Labor Instructions for Submitting Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser Act State Plans and Waiver Requests for Program Year 2010. Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 21-09 2010, Employment and Training Administration, Washington,DC.
47. Wholey Joseph, Hatry Harry The case for performance monitoring. Pubic Administration Review 1992, 52(6):604-610.