Using Performance Indicators to Improve the Effectiveness of Welfare-to-Work Programs

Bartik, Timothy J.

doi:10.17848/wp95-36

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considerable attention would need to be devoted to preventing selection of particular trainees by providers. Referrals could be assigned randomly, or on a rotational basis, to allow direct comparisons of the average performances of different providers (Bartik 1995). Finally, to avoid conflicts of interest, it would also be necessary that these intermediaries have no connection to the underlying service providers.…”

Section: Research Proposal: Experiments With Choice Platforms For Job mentioning

confidence: 99%

Notes on behavioral economics and labor market policy

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Labor market policies succeed or fail at least in part depending on how well they reflect or account for behavioral responses. Insights from behavioral economics, which allow for realistic deviations from standard economic assumptions about behavior, have consequences for the design and functioning of labor market policies. We review key implications of behavioral economics related to procrastination, difficulties in dealing with complexity, and potentially biased labor market expectations for the design of selected labor market policies including unemployment compensation, employment services and job search assistance, and job training.Keywords: Behavioral economics, Unemployment insurance, Job training, Job search JEL: D03, D04, J08, J24, J64, J65 Background and motivationThe Great Recession of 2007 to 2009 and its aftermath have been a trying period for American workers. The U.S. unemployment rate reached double digits in late 2009 for the first time in over a quarter of a century and has remained over 8 percent through mid-2012. Real compensation growth has all but stalled. The human costs of labor market turbulence have rarely been clearer, and the value of public policies, such as unemployment insurance and job training programs, that assist workers in managing that turbulence, gaining new skills, and navigating the labor market have rarely been more apparent. Similar problems of persistent joblessness have been apparent in most major economies in recent years.Even in the best of times, the United States' labor market is a dynamic and turbulent one with high rates of turnover (over five million separations and five million new hires in a typical month in normal times) but substantial frictions as well. As a result, labor market programs and regulations are key components of economic policy. Such policies help support the unemployed, provide education and training opportunities, and ensure the fairness, safety, and accessibility of the workplace. The challenge for policymakers in the United States and elsewhere is to design such policies so that they meet these goals as effectively and as efficiently as possible.Labor market policies succeed in meeting their objectives, however, only to the extent that they accurately account for how individuals actually make decisions about work and leisure, job search, and education and training. To a substantial extent such

show abstract

Section: Research Proposal: Experiments With Choice Platforms For Job mentioning

confidence: 99%

Notes on behavioral economics and labor market policy

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 Bartik's (1995) review of the program performance literature finds that analyses of welfare-to-work programs generally use raw performance data without adjusting for socioeconomic factors. He points out that evaluations of state welfare-to-work programs in the late 1980s generally did not adjust outcomes for the mix of local economic conditions or client characteristics.…”

Section: Program Performance Management Policies and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), which replaced the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act in 1982, included a formal and systematic performance management system. The JTPA legislation specified requirements for performance reporting and allowed adjustments to state measures based on client characteristics and local economic conditions (Bartik, 1995). In fact, DOL, the federal agency that oversaw the JTPA program, provided states with a statistical model that they could use to adjust performance, although states were allowed to develop their own model.…”

Section: Program Performance Management Policies and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare Program Performance

Ratcliffe

Nightingale

Sharkey³

2007

The American Review of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public agencies are increasingly expected to track their performance according to established criteria-to be held accountable for the expenditure of public funds and show that funds are being used to achieve intended outcomes. This analysis of South Carolina's Family Independence welfare program examines counties' performance on five employment-related outcomes: employment rate, employment entry rate, employment retention rate, earnings gain rate, and earned income closure rate. Counties' performance is statistically analyzed, adjusting for variation in external factors (e.g., labor market conditions and caseload characteristics) that influence program performance but that are outside the control of county program staff. This analysis shows that external factors influence employment-related performance, suggesting that states may want to vary counties' goals based on external factors, rather than expecting all counties to meet the same performance level. This analysis provides an example of how agencies can apply statistical analysis to measure, track, and analyze program performance.

show abstract

“…Previous experience with performance standards in welfare-to-work programs and other social programs suggests the following guidelines for an effective standard system (Bartik, 1995):…”

Section: Guidelines For Performance Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%