|
June 2002
|
Can Nonexperimental Comparison Group Methods Match the Findings from a Random Assignment Evaluation of Mandatory Welfare-to-Work Programs?
Howard S. Bloom, Charles Michalopoulos, Carolyn J. Hill, Ying Lei
|
 |
Using an unusually rich set of individuals’ earnings
data, employment histories, and socio-economic characteristics, the authors
address two questions: (1) Which nonexperimental comparison group methods
provide the most accurate estimates of the impacts of mandatory welfare
to work programs; and (2) do the best methods work well enough to substitute
for random assignment experiments? The nonexperimental groups are compared
with experimental control groups from a large-sample, six-state random
assignment experiment — the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work
Strategies. The methods examined combine different types of comparison
groups, with different propensity score balancing approaches and different
statistical models. This document is part of MDRC's methodology working
paper series.
|
|
| |
Funders
The paper was prepared by MDRC under Task Order No. 1 for Contract No. 282-00-0014 with
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and
Families. The Pew Charitable Trusts provided additional resources for the project through a grant
to support methodological research at MDRC.
The findings and conclusions presented in this report do not necessarily represent the official positions
or policies of the funders.
|
|
