Public agencies are increasingly expected to track their performance according to established criteria—to be held accountable for the expenditure of public funds and show that funds are being used to achieve intended outcomes. This analysis of South Carolina’s Family Independence welfare program examines counties’ performance on five employment-related outcomes: employment rate, employment entry rate, employment retention rate, earnings gain rate, and earned income closure rate. Counties’ performance is statistically analyzed, adjusting for variation in external factors (e.g., labor market conditions and caseload characteristics) that influence program performance but that are outside the control of county program staff. This analysis shows that external factors influence employment-related performance, suggesting that states may want to vary counties’ goals based on external factors, rather than expecting all counties to meet the same performance level. This analysis provides an example of how agencies can apply statistical analysis to measure, track, and analyze program performance.
Acs, G., & Loprest, P. (2001), Final synthesis report of ASPE “leavers” grants. Washington, DC:. The Urban Institute.
2.
Barnow, B. (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.
3.
Barnow, B., & Smith, J. A. (2003). Performance management of U.S. job training programs: Lessons from the Job Training Partnership Act. Public Finance and Management, 4(3), 247-287.
4.
Bartik, T. J. (1995). Using performance indicators to improve the effectiveness of welfare-to-work programs. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
5.
Blalock, A. B., & Barnow, B. S. (2000). 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. 487-519). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
6.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. British Medical Journal, 310(170). Retrieved May 26, 2004, from http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/310/6973/170
7.
Burghardt, J., & Schochet, P. Z. (2001). National job corps study: Impacts by center characteristics. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
8.
Duffy, J., & Levin-Epstein, J. (2002). Add it up: Teen parents and welfare: Undercounted, oversanctioned, and underserved. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
9.
Goldberger, A. S. (1991). A course in econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Greene, W. H. (1993). Econometric analysis. New York: Macmillan.
11.
Grogger, J., Karoly, L., & Klerman, J. A. (2002). Consequences of welfare reform: A research synthesis (Tech. Rep. DREU-2676-DHHS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
12.
Hatry, H. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
13.
Hauan, S., & Douglas, S. (2004). Potential employment liabilities among TANF recipients: A synthesis of data from six state TANF caseload studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
14.
Heckman, J. J., Heinrich, C., & Smith, J. (2002). The performance of performance standards. Journal of Human Resources, 37, 778-811.
15.
Koralek, R., & Pindus, N. (2000). South Carolina Family Independence Program process evaluation: Topical report, programs and services. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
16.
Lower-Basch, E. (2000). TANF “leavers,” applicants, and caseload studies: Preliminary analysis of racial differences in caseload trends and leaver outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
17.
Mathworld. (2004). Bonferroni correction. Wolfram Research, Inc. Retrieved May 26, 2004, from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BonferroniCorrection.html
18.
Mead, L. M. (1988). The potential for work enforcement: A study of WIN. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7, 264-288.
19.
Mead, L. M. (1996). Welfare policy: The administrative frontier. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15, 587-600.
20.
Mitchell, J. J., Chadwin, M. L., & Nightingale, D. S. (1979). Implementing welfare-employment programs: An institutional analysis of the Work Incentive (WIN) Program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
21.
Nightingale, D. S., Barnow, B. S., & Makievsky, P. (2005). WIA performance standards and state and local performance management initiatives. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
22.
Osborne, D. E., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial government is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin.
23.
Pindus, N., & Koralek, R. (2000). South Carolina Family Independence Program process evaluation: Overall findings, context, and methods. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
24.
Richburg-Hayes, L., & Freedman, S. (2004). A profile of families cycling on and off welfare. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
25.
Sherman, A., Fremstad, S., & Parrott, S. (2004). Employment rates for single mothers fell substantially during recent period of labor market weakness. Washington, DC: Center on Budget Policy and Priorities.
26.
South Carolina Department of Social Services. (1998, August 3). New Family Independence (FI) goals reports. Memorandum from Susan S. Banks, assistant director program quality assurance. Columbia, SC: Author.
27.
South Carolina Department of Social Services. (2001, November 16). Family Independence outcome measures report: September 2001. Memorandum from Linda S. Martin, director planning and research. Columbia, SC: Author.
28.
South Carolina State Budget and Control Board, Office of Research and Statistics. (1998). South Carolina statistical abstract 1998. Columbia, SC: Author.
29.
South Carolina State Budget and Control Board, Office of Research and Statistics. (1999). South Carolina statistical abstract 1999. Columbia, SC: Author.
30.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2006). Living arrangements of children under 18 years old: 1960 to present. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabCH-1.xls
31.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). States ranked according to FY 1999 performance rates for each measure. Retrieved July 16, 2001, from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/hpb/index.htm%23tabs
32.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (1998, March 17). Formula for awarding the first high performance bonus in fiscal year 1999 (Transmittal No. TANF-ACFPI-98-1). Washington, DC: Author.
33.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2002, April). Fourth annual Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) report to Congress. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2004, November). Sixth annual Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) report to Congress. Washington, DC: Author.
35.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2000). Negotiating performance goals; and incentives and sanctions process under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) (Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 8-99). Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration.
36.
Willis, R. J. (1986). Wage determinants: A survey and reinterpretation of human capital earnings functions. In O. Ashenfelter & R. Layard (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 1, pp. 525-602). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers BV.
37.
Wiseman, M. (2005, June 13). High performance bonus analysis: The job entry rate. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Washington DC.
38.
Wolman, H. (1996). Welfare to work: The need to take place differences into account (Tech. Paper 45). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
39.
Zedlewski, S. R. (1999). Work-related activities and limitations of current welfare recipients. Assessing the new federalism (Discussion Paper 99-06). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
