Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
American Journal of Evaluation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gibson, C. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Privileging the Participant: The Importance of Sub-Group Analysis in Social Welfare Evaluations

Christina M. Gibson

Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, P.O. Box 90245, Durham, NC 27708, USA, cgibson{at}pps.duke.edu

This paper analyzes how variation in participant take-up rates affected the impacts of the New Hope project, a random-assignment, anti-poverty program. New Hope offered experimental members four benefits—child care subsidies, wage subsidies, health insurance, and, if needed, a temporary community service job—that were available to families working full time. Take-up of the benefits was far from universal and experimental participants who used one of the benefits rarely used all of them. Clustering and propensity score methods are used to analyze take-up sub-groups and to estimate program impacts within each. The majority of take-up patterns adopted by experimental members were associated with at least one positive program impact. However, the primary beneficiaries were those parents who used the community service jobs. They increased their employment effort, felt less parenting stress, and had children with higher teacher-related academic accomplishment scores. The implication of this method for the evaluation of other multi-benefit programs is discussed.

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 24, No. 4, 443-469 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/109821400302400403


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
American Journal of EvaluationHome page
L. R. Peck
What Are the Effects of Welfare Sanction Policies? Or, Using Propensity Scores as a Subgroup Indicator to Learn More From Social Experiments
American Journal of Evaluation, September 1, 2007; 28(3): 256 - 274.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Family IssuesHome page
N. G. Neblett
Patterns of Single Mothers' Work and Welfare Use: What Matters for Children's Well-Being?
Journal of Family Issues, August 1, 2007; 28(8): 1083 - 1112.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Eval RevHome page
K. Harknett
Does Receiving an Earnings Supplement Affect Union Formation? Estimating Effects for Program Participants Using Propensity Score Matching
Eval Rev, December 1, 2006; 30(6): 741 - 778.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Eval RevHome page
L. R. Peck
Using Cluster Analysis in Program Evaluation
Eval Rev, April 1, 2005; 29(2): 178 - 196.
[Abstract] [PDF]