The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs.
Abstract
Almost everyone would like to see the enactment of sound, practical measures to help disadvantaged people get off welfare and find jobs at decent wages, and over the past quarter-century federal and state governments have struggled to develop just such programmes. How do we know whether these vast outlays of money are helping the people they are designed to reach? All welfare and training programmes have been subject to demonstrations designed to test new ideas. This book reviews what we have discovered from past assessments and suggests how welfare and training programmes should be planned for the 1990s. The authors of this volume, each a recognized specialist in the evaluation of social programmes, do more than summarize what we have learned so far. They clarify why the issue of the proper conduct and interpretation of evaluations has itself been a subject of continuing controversy. In part, the problem is organizational, requiring the integrated efforts of social scientists, public officials, and the professionals who execute evaluations. In addition, there is a dispute about scientific method: should evaluators try to understand the complex social processes that make programmes succeed (or fail), or should they focus on imputs and outputs, treating the programmes themselves as black boxes whose machinery remains hidden? This book should be important for policy researchers and evaluation professionals, social scientists concerned with evaluation methods, public officials working in social policy, and students of public policy, social work.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Does matching overcome lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators?
A. Smith, J., & E. Todd, P. (2005) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011 · Cited by 3,176
Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs
Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (1999) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10473858 · Cited by 2,395
Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials
Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005 · Cited by 1,841
Assessing the Case for Social Experiments
Heckman, J. J., & Smith, J. A. (1995) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.9.2.85 · Cited by 936
THE ESTIMATION OF CAUSAL EFFECTS FROM OBSERVATIONAL DATA
Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.659 · Cited by 890
Metadata
- Authors
- Crane, J., Manski, C. F., & Garfinkel, I.
- Venue
- Contemporary Sociology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1992-11
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 867
- ISSN
- 0094-3061 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2313177766
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2075695
- The paper
- Crane, J., Manski, C. F., & Garfinkel, I. (1992). Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs. Contemporary Sociology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2075695
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.