New Zealand Working For Families programme: Literature review of evaluation evidence

Martin Evans, Ivana La Valle and Genevieve Knight

PSI Research Discussion Series from Policy Studies Institute, UK

Abstract: In 2005, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) commissioned research to review international evaluation methodology and literature to help in the preparation of evaluation of the Working for Families (WFF) policy, introduced in 2004 to assist working low- and middle-income families in New Zealand. The results of the study are in two parts: Working for Families: Methodological considerations in evaluating the programme and Working for Families: Literature review of evaluation evidence. This first part, the literature review, reviews international literature, comparing the economic impact of WFF with those of welfare reforms elsewhere. It introduces the central issues within the New Zealand and WFF context using a combination of cross-national comparisons and an intensive country or programme literature review. This provides a good balance between depth and coverage and enables a consistent method of review. Research findings are aimed at government social researchers and will enable evaluation to be carried out on WFF based on a sound understanding of current international evidence and benchmarking.

Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.psi.org.uk/pdf/rdp/rdp-25-wff-lit-review.pdf (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 500 Server closed connection without sending any data back

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:psi:resdis:25

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in PSI Research Discussion Series from Policy Studies Institute, UK
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Rob Lyons ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).