[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-201822-105":59,"doc-detail-201822-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","can-subgroup-specific-mean-treatment-effects-explain-heterogeneity-in-welfare-reform-effects-evidence-from-connecticuts-jobs-first-experiment","Can Subgroup-Specific Mean Treatment Effects Explain Heterogeneity in Welfare Reform Effects? Evidence from Connecticut's Jobs First Experiment","","Welfare reform research over the past decade has emphasized mean treatment effects, even though treatment impacts may differ across groups. Using experimental data from Connecticut’s Jobs First, this paper tests whether subgroup-specific mean treatment effects can reproduce previously observed treatment-effect heterogeneity. The approach builds null hypotheses that permit consistent estimation of the treatment group’s earnings distribution from mean effects and control-group earnings, avoiding parametric restrictions beyond the null. Results show strong evidence that flexible subgroup-specific mean specifications cannot generate synthetic heterogeneity comparable to observed patterns, even when means vary by race, education, pre-reform earnings history, and time since random assignment.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/can-subgroup-specific-mean-treatment-effects-explain-heterogeneity-in-welfare-reform-effects-evidence-from-connecticuts-jobs-first-experiment/201822/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/can-subgroup-specific-mean-treatment-effects-explain-heterogeneity-in-welfare-reform-effects-evidence-from-connecticuts-jobs-first-experiment/201822.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"\tJames","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-01","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What question does the paper address about welfare reform effects?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"It asks whether subgroup-specific mean treatment effects can explain or replicate the heterogeneity in welfare reform impacts found in earlier evidence from Connecticut’s Jobs First experiment.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How does the paper estimate earnings distributions using mean treatment effects?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"It constructs null hypotheses under which the treatment group’s earnings distribution can be consistently estimated using mean treatment effects together with control-group earnings data.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What do the results conclude about the usefulness of flexible subgroup-specific mean specifications?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"They find substantial evidence that even relatively flexible subgroup-specific mean treatment effect specifications are inadequate to produce synthetic heterogeneity comparable to the heterogeneity observed in the data.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},201822,1788539077,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},2336474466412,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Can Subgroup-Speci􀀌c Mean Treatment E􀀋ects Explain Heterogeneity in Welfare Reform E􀀋ects? Evidence from Connecticut's Jobs First Experiment  \nMarianne P. Bitler  \nUniversity of California, Irvine and NBER  \nJonah B. Gelbach  \nUniversity of Arizona  \nHilary W. Hoynes  \nUniversity of California, Davis and NBER􀀃  \nFirst version: June 2007  \nThis version: December 2007  \nAbstract  \nThe welfare reform literature of the last decade has largely focused on mean treatment effects. Our own recent work, Bitler, Gelbach & Hoynes (2006), provides evidence of pervasive heterogeneity in the e􀀋ects of Connecticut's Jobs First. To the extent that other research in the welfare reform literature has addressed treatment e􀀋ect heterogeneity, the focus has largely been on mean treatment e􀀋ects within small numbers of subgroups. In this paper, we again use experimental data from Jobs First to evaluate whether subgroup-speci􀀌c mean treatment e􀀋ects can replicate the treatment e􀀋ect heterogeneity we measured previously. We show how to construct null hypotheses under which the treatment group's earnings distribution can be consistently estimated using mean treatment e􀀋ects and control group earnings data. This approach allows us to avoid making any parametric restrictions on the earnings distribution other than those implied by the null. We 􀀌nd substantial evidence that even relatively 􀀍exible subgroup-speci􀀌c mean treatment e􀀋ects speci􀀌cation are inadequate to generate synthetic treatment e􀀋ect heterogeneity comparable to the observed heterogeneity. This conclusion holdseven allowing mean treatment e􀀋ects to vary according to key variables like race, education, and pre-reform earnings history, as well as by time since random assignment.  \n􀀃 Correspondence to Hoynes at UC Davis, Department of Economics, 1152 Social Sciences and Humanities Building, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8578, phone (530) 752-3226, fax (530) 752-9382, or [h](hwhoynes@ucdavis.edu)[whoynes@ucdavis.edu](hwhoynes@ucdavis.edu); Gelbach at [g](gelbach@email.arizona.edu)[elbach@email.arizona.edu](gelbach@email.arizona.edu); or Bitler at [m](mbitler@uci.edu. The)[bitler@uci.edu. The](mbitler@uci.edu. The) data used in this paper are derived from data 􀀌les made available to researchers by MDRC. The authors remain solely responsible for how the data have been used or interpreted. We are very grateful to MDRC for providing the public access to the experimental data used here. We would also like to thank Joe Altonji, Mike Boozer, David Brownstone, Julie Cullen, David Green, Je􀀋 Grogger, Jon Guryan, John Ham, Pat Kline, Thomas Lemieux, Bruce Meyer, Robert Mo􀀎tt, Giuseppe Ragusa, Je􀀋 Smith, and Melissa Tartari for helpful conversations, as well as seminar participants at the IRP Summer Research Workshop, the SOLE meetings, UCSD, UC Davis, the Harris School, and Yale University.  \n1 Introduction  \nWelfare reform dramatically changed the system of cash support for low income families with children in the United States. By the end of 1998, all states were required to eliminate Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and replace it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) . This meant large changes in incentives facing welfare recipients including adding lifetime time limits for welfare receipt, as well as stringent work requirements and the threat of 􀀌nancial sanctions. Due to this policy change, and the concurrent changes in the Earned Income Tax Credit and the strong labor market of the 1990s, annual employment rates of less educated single mothers increased by fully 18 percentage points|from 64 percent in 1992 to 82 percent in 2000 (Eissa & Hoynes (2006)) .1  \nAn enormous literature has followed this important set of policy changes. Recent comprehensive reviews of the literature conclude that welfare reform led to a reduction in welfare caseloads and an increase in employment and earnings, with less consistent and less statistically signi􀀌cant 􀀌ndings for the impacts","cbCaikH823rm8WRz","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikH823rm8WRz","pdf",466625,54,"English","# Introduction\n## Welfare reform policy change and labor market context\n## Literature on treatment heterogeneity\n## Prior work using quantile treatment effects\n## Motivation for testing subgroup-specific mean treatment effects","[{\"question\":\"What question does the paper address about welfare reform effects?\",\"answer\":\"It asks whether subgroup-specific mean treatment effects can explain or replicate the heterogeneity in welfare reform impacts found in earlier evidence from Connecticut’s Jobs First experiment.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the paper estimate earnings distributions using mean treatment effects?\",\"answer\":\"It constructs null hypotheses under which the treatment group’s earnings distribution can be consistently estimated using mean treatment effects together with control-group earnings data.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the results conclude about the usefulness of flexible subgroup-specific mean specifications?\",\"answer\":\"They find substantial evidence that even relatively flexible subgroup-specific mean treatment effect specifications are inadequate to produce synthetic heterogeneity comparable to the heterogeneity observed in the data.\"}]","Can Subgroup-Specific Mean Treatment Effects Explain Heterogeneity in Welfare Reform Effects? Evidence from Connecticut's Jobs First Experiment | PDF",136]