New Zealand Working For Families programme: Methodological considerations for evaluating MSD programmes
The methodological review is the second part of the evaluation research commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in 2005 to help in the preparation of the evaluation of the Working for Families (WFF) programme. This review enumerates the key evaluation questions identified by MSD as central to their policy concerns and considers how the features of WFF could affect evaluation. It details the methodological and data requirements that must be addressed in order to meet the four key evaluation objectives, namely: (1) tracking and evaluating the implementation and delivery of WFF (2) identifying changes in entitlement take-up and reasons for it (3) establishing the impact of WFF on employment-related outcomes (4) assessing WFF’s effect on net income and quality of life more generally. The methodological review complements the literature review by reviewing evaluations from around the world that are pertinent to WFF. An overview of evaluation methods is provided, concentrating on particular issues that arise within the WFF context. Section 2 focuses on implementation and delivery. Section 3 covers the issues related to take-up and entitlement and their evaluation. Section 4 discusses the evaluation methodologies that can be used in evaluating programmes such as WFF and introduces the data requirements they entail. Making work pay is the focus of section 5. Finally, section 6 examines hardship and poverty, living standards and wellbeing.
|Date of creation:||2007|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 50 Hanson St, London,W1W 6UP|
Phone: 0207 911 7500
Fax: 0207 911 7501
Web page: http://www.psi.org.uk/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:psi:resdis:26. 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: (Rob Lyons)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.