Screening (and creaming?) applicants to job training programs: the AFDC homemaker–home health aide demonstrations

Bell, Stephen H.; Orr, Larry L.

doi:10.1016/s0927-5371(02)00006-4

Cited by 63 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A direct comparison of these two groups would thus be biased in favor of the non-recipients because they have a "head start" over the recipients. A study in the United States on the granting of service found that most of the granting process remained unexplained and therefore indicated that the process was largely governed by subjective assessments by individual case workers, favoring, for Saltychev et al example, people with the most potential gain from the service (optimizing the economic efficiency) or people most likely to succeed ("creaming") (36). In this study, we used propensity-based matching to handle treatment selection bias.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary primary prevention in decreasing the risk of work disability in a low-risk population

Saltychev¹,

Laimi²,

El-Metwally³

et al. 2011

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary primary prevention in decreasing the risk of work disability in a low-risk population

Saltychev¹,

Laimi²,

El-Metwally³

et al. 2011

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…10 Carneiro, Hansen, and Heckman (2001) demonstrate that most of the variation in future earnings gains is unforecastable, even for college graduates. Bell and Orr (2002) show that caseworkers do a poor job of predicting a ∆ in a program that provided job training to welfare recipients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Performance of Performance Standards

Heckman¹,

Heinrich²,

Smith³

2002

The Journal of Human Resources

142

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The experiences from the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) showed that tying the funding to the performance of local programmes as measured by job placement rates creates the incentive to serve the most able applicants, without regarding how much different groups might have benefited from programmes (see for example Bell and Orr (2002) as 'a procedure where a numerical score, calculated on the basis of multivariate information, determines the referral of a job-seeker to further employment services'. Based on this definition, we will present three approaches to identify potential sources of effect heterogeneity, which could be used, if successful, for a better targeting in future.…”

Section: Matching Quality and First Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Effect Heterogeneity to Improve the Effiency of Job Creation Schemes in Germany?

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Discussion Papers dienen einer möglichst schnellen Verbreitung von neueren Forschungsarbeiten des ZEW. Die Beiträge liegen in alleiniger Verantwortung der Autoren und stellen nicht notwendigerweise die Meinung des ZEW dar.Discussion Papers are intended to make results of ZEW research promptly available to other economists in order to encourage discussion and suggestions for revisions. The authors are solely responsible for the contents which do not necessarily represent the opinion of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp0521.pdf Non-Technical SummaryJob creation schemes (JCS) are a form of subsidised employment and aim at the stabilisation and qualification of unemployed persons with disadvantages on the labour market. They are often criticised because they lack explicit qualification of the participants and only promote jobs that are not in line with the market. Recent empirical studies of JCS in Germany haveshown that the average effects for the participating individuals are negative. There may be two possible reasons for this 'ineffectiveness': On the one hand it may be due to the poor quality of programmes in conjunction with often cited stigma-and 'locking-in' effects, on the other hand inefficient allocation of participants may be the reason. Hence, negative mean impacts may not apply to all strata of the population since treatment effects are heterogeneous.In this paper we analyse if individuals gain from participation in terms of employment. To do so, we apply matching methods to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated with respect to gender-specific and regional differences in a first step. In a second step, we examine three sources of effect heterogeneity: We start with a selection of special problem-groups of the labour market, followed by a simple indicator based on the individual's number of disadvantages (target score) to analyse whether programme effects differ corresponding to the individual labour market hindrances. At least we use the estimated participation probability to answer the question whether a higher participation probability correlates with a higher programme impact.We use data on all participants in JCS, who have started their programmes in February 2000, and a comparison group of nonparticipants, who have been eligible for participation in January 2000 but have not participated in February.Our results refer to December 2002. We find positive employment effects for women in West Germany, whereas the results for men in that region are insignificant. In East Germany men and women are harmed by programme participation. Our findings for the selected target groups of the labour market show that JCS do neither harm nor improve the labour market chances for most of the groups. Persons who benefit from participation are long-term unemployed men in West Germany and long-term unemployed women in both regions as well as older women and women who are hard-to-place in West Germany. Referring to the results of the targe...

show abstract

Screening (and creaming?) applicants to job training programs: the AFDC homemaker–home health aide demonstrations

Cited by 63 publications

References 4 publications

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary primary prevention in decreasing the risk of work disability in a low-risk population

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary primary prevention in decreasing the risk of work disability in a low-risk population

The Performance of Performance Standards

Identifying Effect Heterogeneity to Improve the Effiency of Job Creation Schemes in Germany?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About