The Value of Efficiency Measures: Lessons from Workforce Development Programs

References

• Anderson, K., & Raymond, J. (1993). The effect of creaming on placement rates under the Job Training Partnership Act. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(4), 613–624.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, K., Burkhauser, R., Raymond, J., & Russell, C. (1992). Mixed signals in the Job Training Partnership Act. Growth and Change, 22(3), 32–48.
   Google Scholar
• Barnow, B. S. (1996). Policies for people with disabilities in U.S. employment and training programs. In J. L. Mashaw V. Reno R. Burkhauser & M. Berkowitz (Eds.), Disabilities, cash benefits, and work (pp. 297–328). Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
   Google Scholar
• Barnow, B. S. (2000). Exploring the relationship between performance management and program impact: A case study of the Job Training Partnership Act. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(1), 118–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnow, B.S., & Heinrich, C. (2010). One size fits all? The pros and cons of performance standard adjustments. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 60–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnow, B. S., & King, C. T. (2005). The Workforce Investment Act in eight states. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Barnow, B. S., & Smith, J. A. (2004). Performance management of U.S. job training programs: Lessons from the Job Training Partnership Act. Public Finance and Management, 4(3), 247–287.
   Google Scholar
• Blalock, A., & Barnow, B. 2001. Is the new obsession with “performance management” masking the truth about social programs? In D. Forsythe (Ed.), Quicker, better, cheaper: Managing performance in American government (pp. 485–517). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, H. S., Michalopoulos, C., Hill, C. J., & Lei, Y. (2002). Can nonexperimental comparison group methods match the findings from a random assignment evaluation of mandatory welfare-to-work programs?. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Boardman, A., Greenberg, D., Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, T. D., Shadish, W. R., & Wong, V. C. (2008). Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 724–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courty, P., & Marschke, G. (1996). Moral hazard under incentive systems: The case of a federal bureaucracy. In G. Libecap (Ed.) Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth (vol. 7, pp. 157–190). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Courty, P., & Marschke, G. (1997). Measuring government performance: Lessons from a federal job-training program. American Economic Review, 87(2), 383–388.
   Google Scholar
• Courty, P., & Marschke, G. (2004). An empirical investigation of gaming responses to explicit performance incentives. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(1), 22–56.
   Google Scholar
• Courty, P., & Marschke, G. (2007). Making government accountable: Lessons from a federal job training program. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 904–916.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickinson, K., West, R. W., Kogan, D. J., Drury, D. A., Franks, M. S., Schlictmann, L., & Vencil, M. (1988). Evaluation of the effects of JTPA performance standards on clients, services, and costs. Report No. 88–15. Washington, DC: National Commission for Employment Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Geys, B., & Moesen, W. (2009). Measuring local government technical (in)efficiency: An application and comparison of FDH, DEA, and econometric approaches. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 499–513.
   Google Scholar
• Hatry, H. P. (2007). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, J., & Smith, J. (2004). The determinants of participation in a social program: Evidence from JTPA. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(2), 243–298.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, J., Heinrich, C., & Smith, J. (2002). The performance of performance standards. Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 778–811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman, J., Smith, J., & Taber, C. (1996). What do bureaucrats do? The effects of performance standards and bureaucratic preferences on acceptance into the JTPA program. In G. Libecap (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth (vol. 7, pp. 191–218). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marschke, G. (2002). Performance incentives and bureaucratic behavior: Evidence from a federal bureaucracy. Working paper. Albany: Department of Economics, State University of New York at Albany.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, R., Gorman, P., & Wilson, A. (2007). California one-stop system cost study report. Prepared for California Workforce Investment Board by California State University—Northridge.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, J. J. (2003). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs (2nd ed.). New York: Butterworth Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H. (2010). Performance measurement: Monitoring program outcomes. In J. S. Wholey H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (3rd ed., pp. 100–125). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the performance movement. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rubenstein, R., Stiefel, L., & Schwartz, A. E. (2003). Better than raw: A guide to measuring organizational performance with adjusted performance measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 607–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schochet, P. Z., & Burghardt, J. (2008). Do Job Corps performance measures track program impacts? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(3), 556–576.
   Google Scholar
• Schochet, P. Z., Burghardt, J., & McConnell, S. (2006). National Job Corps study and longer-term follow-up study: Impact and benefit-cost findings using survey and summary earnings records data. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51(1), 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, J., & Todd, P. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics, 125, 305–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Social Policy Research Associates. (1999). Guide to JTPA performance standards for program years 1998 and 1999. Menlo Park, CA: Social Policy Research Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Social Policy Research Associates. (2004). The Workforce Investment Act after five years: Results from the national evaluation of the implementation of WIA. Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Trutko, J., & Barnow, B. S. (2010). Implementing efficiency measures for employment and training programs: Final report. Occasional Paper ETAOP 2010–05. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Labor, Employment, & Training Administration. (2001). Summary report on WIA implementation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (2002). Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 11–01. Guidance on revising Workforce Investment Act (WIA) state negotiated levels of performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Labor, Employment, & Training Administration. (2007). Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 19–06. Negotiating performance goals for the Workforce Investment Act Title 1B programs and Wagner-Peyser Act program for program years 2007 and 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Job Corps. (2007). Policy and requirements handbook: Job Corps. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Job Corps.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Glossary: Performance measurement and evaluation—Definitions and relationships. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. GAO/GGD-98-26. Available at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gg98026.pdf, accessed.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. General Accounting Office. (2002). Workforce Investment Act: Improvements needed in performance measures to provide a more accurate picture of WIA’s effectiveness. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004a). Federal budget: Agency obligations by budget function and object classification for fiscal year 2003. GAO-04–834.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004b). Principles of federal appropriations law. 3rd ed., vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office Report GAO-04-26.
   Google Scholar
• Wholey, J. S., & Hatry, H. P. (1992). The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52(6), 604–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilde, E. T., & Hollister, R. (2007). How close is close enough? Testing nonexperimental estimates of impact against experimental estimates of impact with education test scores as outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(3), 455–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Workforce Enterprise Services. (2007). Chicago Workforce Board cost per participant study final report: Cost per participant comparison study—Phase two final report.
   Google Scholar