Evaluating the Differential Effects of Alternative Welfare-to-Work Training Components : A Re-Analysis of the California GAIN Program * by

By V. Joseph Hotz, Guido W. Imbens, J. Klerman, Rand, Jan Hanley, Laurie Mcdonald, Debbie Wesley, Howard S. Bloom, Jim Riccio, H. Bos and 2 more. 2005

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Susan Athey
2. Stefan Wager
3. Ahmed M. Alaa
4. Nathan Kallus
5. Xinkun Nie
6. S. Jespersen
7. J. Munch
8. Lars Skipper

Citations in the corpus

• Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions (2016, positive): “As discussed in detail in Hotz et al. (2006), the experimental conditions differed noticeably across counties, both in terms of the fraction of registrants who were eligible for GAIN, i.e. the treatment propensity, and in terms of the subjects participating in the experiment.”
• Minimum-Income Benefits in OECD Countries: Policy Design, Effectiveness and Challenges (2010, background): “Employment gains are, however, possibly greater in the long term (Bloom and Michaelopoulos, 2001; Hotz et al., 2006).”
• Site Selection Bias in Program Evaluation (2015, unknown): “…of how the no site effects assumption has been made explicitly, consider analyses of the GAIN job training program that attribute differences in outcomes between Riverside County and other sites only to an emphasis on Labor Force Attachment (LFA) (Dehejia 2003, Hotz, Imbens, and Klerman 2006).”
• Policy Learning With Observational Data (2017, methodology): “As described in Hotz, Imbens, and Klerman (2006), randomly chosen registrants were eligible to receive GAIN benefits immediately, whereas others were embargoed from the program until 1993.”
• Social Experiments in the Labor Market (2016, unknown): “Control subjects were 15 Hotz et al. (2006) also point out that the treatment group was selected differently between the four GAIN sites, possibly contributing to the estimated ‘site’ effects.”
• Costs and benefits of Danish active labour market programmes (2008, background): “In addition, Hotz et al. (2006) estimate long-term effects of the California Greater Avenues to Independence (GAIN) programme and find that classroom training catches up and ultimately outperforms strategies that emphasize “work first”.”
• Learning and Earning: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in India (2017, unknown): “For example Karlan (2005) finds that individuals identied as more trustworthy in a laboratory setting are more likely to repay their loans one year later.”