Search

The Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge intervention seeks to encourage more young people to articipate in tertiary education. This paper updates previous estimates of the impact of the programme on the GCSE marks and reported expected school leaving ages, among year 11 pupils. Information from 3 different cohorts is used (whereas the previous analysis had data on the first 2 cohorts). In some schools the second and third cohorts have been exposed to the policy, whereas in others only the third cohort was exposed to the policy. This distinction is used to model the impact of the policy using linear regression analysis. However the lack of a comparison group in Spring 2004 means that the impact of the policy can only be estimated under relatively strong assumptions about the evolution of the impact of the policy across time. Under the assumption that the policy had the same impact in the original treatment (EiC Phase 1 & 2 areas) in Spring 2004 as in Spring 2003, we find evidence that being part of the Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge programme in the new areas (EiC Phase 3) has led to a 5.2 percentage point increase in the year 11 pupils expecting to leave education at age 20 or over. Although slightly larger, this estimate is not statistically significantly different from the increase of 3.7 percentage points found in the original (EiC Phase 1 & 2) areas. Across both types of area (EiC Phase 1& 2 and EiC Phase 3) we estimate that the average impact of the policy is to increase the percentage of year 11 pupils reporting that they will leave education at age 20 or above by 4.6 percentage points. We also find some evidence of a similar positive impact on GCSE English results, although the impact across other GCSEs is less clear. While the assumptions made in producing these new estimates are relatively strong it is clear that the analysis of the new data does not contradict the previous estimates (which were reliant on less strong assumptions).

Over the past decades, an increasing number of young people have entered into higher education in the UK. Yet, despite this growth, the UK still has a low ranking in international comparisons for the rate of participation in post-compulsory education. Furthermore, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are greatly underrepresented. Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge is one of the government initiatives designed in an attempt to address this problem. The policy was introduced in September 2001 in the same areas as those targeted by the Excellence in Cities (EiC) programme. Its stated aims are to raise aspirations and participation in tertiary education of individuals aged between 14 and 19; a special focus is on the targeting of people with a disadvantaged background. In this paper we study the impact of Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge using information contained in the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for individuals aged between 16 and 20. Individuals in Local Education Authorities (LEA) where the programme was introduced are compared to individuals in LEAs where the policy was not implemented. The difference in average outcomes over time is compared for Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge LEAs and the 'comparison group' of LEAs outside the programme. This 'difference-in-differences' methodology allows us to distinguish the impact of the policy on outcomes from the (time-constant) effect of unobserved LEA attributes and trends common to both groups of LEAs. Yet, given that the policy was implemented in EiC areas, and that there may be complementarities between the two programmes, our results should not be interpreted as isolating the independent effect of the Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge programme. Overall, we find that the policy did not have a positive and statistically significant effect on further/higher education participation rates (and educational attainments) for young individuals. In fact, while point estimates of the impact of Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge suggest a positive impact of the policy on the fraction of young individuals studying beyond compulsory education, there is enormous variation around these estimates and they do not provide (statistically) reliable information on the effectiveness of the policy. This is due to the way in which the policy was implemented to cover only a few (very broadly defined) 'treatment' areas, which have to be compared to a similarly broadly defined comparison group. As a result, there is considerable variation in the outcome variables and only very large policy effects might be expected to result in statistical significance. However, our analysis gives stronger evidence of heterogeneity in the effects of the policy. Individuals from more disadvantaged backgrounds (for example, as indicated by those living on social housing or having unemployed fathers) have seemed to benefit more from the policy, compared to students from better-off backgrounds - their probability of entering post-compulsory education is significantly higher as a result of the policy. However, again, the estimates are relatively sensitive to specification and therefore should be interpreted with some caution.

Since October 2003 the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been piloting reforms in England, Scotland and Wales which provide greater support alongside greater obligations to encourage many new claimants of incapacity benefits to move into paid work. The Pathways to Work package of reforms includes: a series of usually mandatory workfocused interviews; programmes designed to boost claimants' prospects of being able to work; and increased financial incentives for individuals to enter paid employment. As part of a quantitative assessment of the impact of the programme, a telephone survey of those making an initial enquiry to Jobcentre Plus about claiming incapacity benefits was conducted in both pilot and comparison areas before and after the pilots were implemented. This report focuses on the differences in some early quantitative outcomes between Pathways and non-Pathways areas. Two empirical techniques are used to investigate the early impact of the pilots on employment, earnings, receipt of incapacity benefits, and a potential indicator of the extent to which individuals' health affects their everyday activities. The analysis was undertaken by researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the telephone interviews were undertaken by the National Centre for Social Research. All these findings are preliminary: more comprehensive analysis will be conducted in later stages of the evaluation. This report analyses outcomes at a time shortly after the pilots started. Further analysis of outcomes will assess Pathways to Work using survey and administrative data from a later cohort and will examine outcomes over a longer period of time.

This paper evaluates whether means-tested grants paid to secondary students are an effective way of reducing the proportion of school dropouts. We look at this problem using matching techniques on a pilot study carried out in England during 1999 and 2000 using a specially designed dataset that ensures that valid comparisons between our pilot and control areas are made. The impact of the subsidy is quite substantial with initial participation rates (at age 16/17) being around 4.5 percentage points higher. Full-time participation rates one year later are found to have increased by around 6.4 percentage points which is largely due to the EMA having a significant effect on retention in post compulsory education. These effects vary by eligibility group with those receiving the full payment having the largest initial increase in participation, whilst the effects for those who are partially eligible are only significantly different from the control group in the second year of the program. There is some evidence that the participation rate effect is stronger for boys, especially in the second year, and that the policy goes some way to reducing the gap in dropout rates between boys and girls. It is also clear that the policy has the largest impact on children from the poorest socio-economic background.

The 1998 Code for Fiscal Stability sets out the framework within which UK fiscal policy is now set. While having such a code does not make it easier for a Government to meet its fiscal objectives, it may improve the economic credibility of the policy process. To date the Code has generally worked well, and in any case many of the Treasury’s practices exceed the minimum requirements of the Code. However, improvements could be made in the light of recent experiences. In particular it would be preferable for less emphasis to be placed on the precise forecasts for fiscal aggregates and greater emphasis to be placed on the magnitude of the risks to those forecasts. Using the projections contained in the March 2004 Budget, and information on the size of errors made in the past, we estimate that there is now a 60% chance that the Chancellor’s “golden rule” will be met without further tax increases or spending cuts. This compares to 74% for the forecast made by the Treasury 12 months earlier. As well as clarifying how cautious forecasts are, the uncertainty surrounding projections for fiscal aggregates also has implications for the way in which progress towards any fiscal rules should be interpreted.

This paper examines the corporation tax forecasting techniques used by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. For current year forecasts a judgemental forecast is found to have performed better than relying solely on a simple model or information on the receipts available so far in the current financial year. For longer time horizons the judgemental forecast has performed slightly less well than the modelled forecast. While forecasts made later in the financial year have led to more accurate estimates of receipts in the current year no evidence is found that this has improved the accuracy of longer run forecasts. In the short term inaccuracies in the modelling process are found to be more important than errors in forecasting growth in corporate profits. However the latter is still an important component of errors and one that grows substantially in relative importance as the forecast horizon increases.

The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has commissioned a longitudinal evaluation of the piloting of Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs). The evaluation is being undertaken by a consortium of research organisations, led by the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) and also includes the National Centre for Social Research, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Institute for Employment Research (IER). This is the second report of the statistical evaluation of EMA. The statistical evaluation design is a longitudinal cohort study involving large random sample surveys of young people (and their parents) in 10 EMA pilot areas and eleven control areas1. Two cohorts of young people were selected from Child Benefit records. The first cohort of young people left compulsory schooling in the summer of 1999 and they, and their parents, were interviewed between November 1999 and April 2000. A second interview was carried out with these young people between November 2000 and April 2001. The second cohort left compulsory education the following summer of 2000 and young people, and their parents, were first interviewed between November 2000 and April 2001.

One of the main aims of the Government's Connexions Strategy is to provide financial support for young people who might otherwise be unable to remain in fulltime education post-16; that is, after the end of compulsory schooling. EMA is a means-tested allowance available to 16 to 19 year olds. It aims to encourage participation, retention and achievement among young people, particularly those from low-income families. This evaluation focuses on the four models of EMA that were introduced into the original 15 pilot LEAs in September 1999. The pilots have subsequently been extended to a further 41 LEA areas. As well as evaluating the impact of EMA on participation, retention and achievement, the evaluation must also make recommendations on the level at which EMA should be set; the effectiveness of bonuses for retention and achievement; and to whom EMA should be paid (parent or young person). The evaluation will also address a range of subsidiary issues relating to the effect of EMA on young people's lives. The evaluation has four main elements, which combine both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This report focuses on the impact of EMA on those most directly affected, young people and their parents. It describes quantitative findings from the first wave of interviews with the first cohort of young people potentially eligible for EMA; those who completed compulsory education in summer 1999.

Addiction to gambling tends to be a hidden problem but now the UK's first NHS-funded treatment unit is attempting to tackle it.