IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v22y2003i2p207-223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of client surveys to gauge the threat of contamination in welfare reform experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Camasso
  • Radha Jagannathan

    (Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University)

  • Carol Harvey

    (Center for State Health Care Policy, Rutgers University)

  • Mark Killingsworth

    (Department of Economics, Rutgers University)

Abstract

This paper examines the type of evidence policy analysts have used to identify the presence and magnitude of contamination in welfare reform experiments. Peter Rossi's critique of the New Jersey Family Development Program evaluation motivates the following discussion. In this critique Rossi and others contend that client misperception about experimental control-group assignment resulted in contamination that negates reported treatment effectiveness. By applying the framework of the Rubin Causal Model (RCM) to isolate “pure” and “impure” experimental and control cases, the actual group assignment and not self-reported membership is shown to be a more accurate gauge of treatment level and effect. The analysis reveals that the form of contamination Rossi detected leads to underestimates of treatment effects, not their evaporation. While contamination is a legitimate threat in any research design its identification must be based on empirical measures. © 2003 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Camasso & Radha Jagannathan & Carol Harvey & Mark Killingsworth, 2003. "The use of client surveys to gauge the threat of contamination in welfare reform experiments," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2), pages 207-223.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:22:y:2003:i:2:p:207-223
    DOI: 10.1002/pam.10114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/pam.10114
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bradley R. Schiller, 1999. "State Welfare-Reform Impacts: Content And Enforcement Effects," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(2), pages 210-222, April.
    2. Carol Harvey & Michael J. Camasso & Radha Jagannathan, 2000. "Evaluating Welfare Reform Waivers under Section 1115," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 165-188, Fall.
    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. Robert Moffitt, 2002. "The role of randomized field trials in social science research: a perspective from evaluations of reforms of social welfare programs," CeMMAP working papers CWP23/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Ted Joyce & Robert Kaestner & Sanders Korenman & Stanley Henshaw, 2004. "Family Cap Provisions and Changes in Births and Abortions," NBER Working Papers 10214, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Michael J. Camasso, 2004. "Isolating the Family Cap Effect on Fertility Behavior: Evidence From New Jersey's Family Development Program Experiment," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(4), pages 453-467, October.
    4. Gary King & Emmanuela Gakidou & Nirmala Ravishankar & Ryan T. Moore & Jason Lakin & Manett Vargas & Martha María Téllez-Rojo & Juan Eugenio Hernández Ávila & Mauricio Hernández Ávila & Héctor Hernánde, 2007. "A “politically robust” experimental design for public policy evaluation, with application to the Mexican Universal Health Insurance program," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 479-506.

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:22:y:2003:i:2:p:207-223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.