IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v1y2010i1p1-30_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Synthesis of Random Assignment Benefit-Cost Studies of Welfare-to-Work Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Greenberg, David H.
  • Deitch, Victoria
  • Hamilton, Gayle

Abstract

Over the past two decades, federal and state policymakers have dramatically reshaped the nation’s system of cash welfare assistance for low-income families. During this period, there has been considerable variation from state to state in approaches to welfare reform, which are often collectively referred to as “welfare-to-work programs.” This article synthesizes an extraordinary body of evidence: results from 28 benefit-cost studies of welfare-to-work programs based on random assignment evaluation designs. Each of the 28 programs can be viewed as a test of one of six types of welfare reform approaches: mandatory work experience programs, mandatory job-search-first programs, mandatory education-first programs, mandatory mixed-initial-activity programs, earnings supplement programs, and time-limit-mix programs. After describing how benefit-cost studies of welfare-to-work programs are conducted and considering some limitations of these studies, the synthesis addresses such questions as: Which welfare reform program approaches yield a positive return on investments made, from the perspective of program participants and from the perspective of government budgets, and the perspective of society as a whole? Which approaches make program participants better off financially? In which approaches do benefits exceed costs from the government’s point of view? The last two of these questions coincide with the trade-off between reducing dependency on government benefits and ensuring adequate incomes for low-income families. Because the benefit-cost studies examined program effects from the distinct perspectives of government budgets and participants’ incomes separately, they address this trade-off directly. The article thus uses benefit-cost findings to aid in assessing the often complex trade-offs associated with balancing the desire to ensure the poor of adequate incomes and yet encourage self-sufficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Greenberg, David H. & Deitch, Victoria & Hamilton, Gayle, 2010. "A Synthesis of Random Assignment Benefit-Cost Studies of Welfare-to-Work Programs," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-30, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:1:y:2010:i:1:p:1-30_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588800000099/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Greenberg & Karl Ashworth & Andreas Cebulla & Robert Walker, 2004. "Do Welfare-to-Work Programmes Work for Long?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 25(1), pages 27-53, March.
    2. David H. Greenberg, 1997. "The Leisure Bias in Cost-Benefit Analyses of Employment and Training Programs," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 32(2), pages 413-439.
    3. David Greenberg & Karl Ashworth & Andreas Cebulla & Robert Walker, 2005. "When Welfare-to-Work Programs Seem to Work Well: Explaining Why Riverside and Portland Shine So Brightly," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 59(1), pages 34-50, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Liming & Avendano, Mauricio, 2023. "Lone parents' employment policy and adolescents’ socioemotional development: Quasi-experimental evidence from a UK reform," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    2. Courard-Hauri David & Lauer Stephen A., 2012. "Taking "All Men Are Created Equal" Seriously: Toward a Metric for the Intergroup Comparison of Utility Functions Through Life Values," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-30, August.
    3. Zachary Horváth & Brian David Moore & Jonathan C. Rork, 2014. "Does Federal Aid to States Aid the States?," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 333-361, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haveman, Robert H. & Farrow, Scott, 2011. "Labor Expenditures and Benefit-Cost Accounting in Times of Unemployment," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-9, April.
    2. Daniel Gubits & David Stapleton & Stephen Bell & Michelle Wood & Denise Hoffman & Sarah Croake & David R. Mann & Judy Geyer & David Greenberg & Austin Nichols & Andrew McGuirk & Meg Carroll & Utsav Ka, "undated". "BOND Implementation and Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report, Volume 1," Mathematica Policy Research Reports fac39cd85b944c528e7acbb5d, Mathematica Policy Research.
    3. Bernhard Boockmann, 2010. "The Combined Employment Effects of Minimum Wages and Labor Market Regulation—a Meta-Analysis," Applied Economics Quarterly (formerly: Konjunkturpolitik), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 61(Supplemen), pages 167-188.
    4. Ian Greer, 2016. "Welfare reform, precarity and the re-commodification of labour," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 30(1), pages 162-173, February.
    5. Keshab Bhattarai & John Whalley, 2009. "Redistributive Effects of Transfer Programmes in the United Kingdom," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(303), pages 413-431, July.
    6. Jespersen, Svend T. & Munch, Jakob R. & Skipper, Lars, 2008. "Costs and benefits of Danish active labour market programmes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 859-884, October.
    7. Dehejia, Rajeev H., 2005. "Program evaluation as a decision problem," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 141-173.
    8. Thakuriah (Vonu), Piyushimita & Persky, Joseph & Soot, Siim & Sriraj, P.S., 2013. "Costs and benefits of employment transportation for low-wage workers: An assessment of job access public transportation services," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 31-42.
    9. Sianesi, Barbara, 2008. "Differential effects of active labour market programs for the unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 370-399, June.
    10. Burt S. Barnow & Sanjay K. Pandey & Qian “Eric†Luo, 2024. "How Mixed-Methods Research Can Improve the Policy Relevance of Impact Evaluations," Evaluation Review, , vol. 48(3), pages 495-514, June.
    11. Nathan Berg & Todd Gabel, 2013. "Effects of New Welfare Reform Strategies on Welfare Participation: Microdata Estimates from Canada," Working Papers 1304, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2013.
    12. Sheena McConnell & Steven Glazerman, 2001. "National Job Corps Study: The Benefits and Costs of Job Corps," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 19ff8678a108410587c5dfad0, Mathematica Policy Research.
    13. David C. Stapleton & Joel Smith & Denise Whalen & Laura Kosar, "undated". "BOND Implementation and Evaluation: Proposal to Develop Enhancements to the Benefit Offset Simulation Model (BOSIM)," Mathematica Policy Research Reports cc0df2cb29c44353bcaf7dfd9, Mathematica Policy Research.
    14. Heckman, James J. & Lalonde, Robert J. & Smith, Jeffrey A., 1999. "The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1865-2097, Elsevier.
    15. Adda, Jérôme & Costa Dias, Mònica & Meghir, Costas & Sianesi, Barbara, 2007. "Labour market programmes and labour market outcomes: a study of the Swedish active labour market interventions," Working Paper Series 2007:27, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:1:y:2010:i:1:p:1-30_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.