1 / 13

Program evaluation, spring 2010 Zuhdi Hashweh Sophio Bendiashvili

Capitalizing on Nonrandom Assignment to Treatments: A Regression-Discontinuity Evaluation of a Crime-Control Program Richard A. Berk and David Rauma March, 1983. Program evaluation, spring 2010 Zuhdi Hashweh Sophio Bendiashvili. The Program. Former Inmate Insurance Program

keene
Download Presentation

Program evaluation, spring 2010 Zuhdi Hashweh Sophio Bendiashvili

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Capitalizing on Nonrandom Assignment to Treatments: A Regression-Discontinuity Evaluation of a Crime-Control ProgramRichard A. Berk and David RaumaMarch, 1983 Program evaluation, spring 2010 Zuhdi Hashweh SophioBendiashvili

  2. The Program • Former Inmate Insurance Program • Mandated by California Senate Bill 224. • Began in 1978. • Unemployment benefits in California extended to ex-offenders incarcerated in state prisons. • Goals • Ex-offenders face many difficulties in making a transition from prison life to normal life. • Because of the Stigma, many return to crime and get re-incarcerated. • Program aims to induce fewer returns to prison.

  3. The Program (2) • Eligibility • Obtained through working at prison jobs • Work for at least 652 hours at minimum wage ($2.30/hour) over a 12 months period. • After release ex-prisoners can apply at the unemployment office locally. • Amount of support depended on hours worked in prison ($30-$70 per week, up to 26 weeks).

  4. Data • Source: • California Employment Development Department. • California Department of Corrections. • Ex-offenders were followed for 12 months immediately after release. • Follow-up period redefined as 10 months from the time of application for the benefits. • Sample contained a total of 920 experimentals and 255 controls all of whom applied for the program.

  5. Data (2) • Reported hours were the sole factor determining eligibility. • All Individuals at or above the threshold received the benefits. • By knowing the accumulated reported hours, ex-prisoners can be assigned into experimental and control groups. • Experimental Group: Those who applied for the program and received the benefits. • Control Group: Those who applied for the program but did not receive the benefits.

  6. Selected Characteristics of the California Parole Population, By Year, 1977-1979, Compared With the Final Sample • External Validity • Sample looks similar to the population from which it was drawn.

  7. Model Specification • How is the outcome (failure) defined? • A felony resulting in parole revocation/return to prison. • A parolee at large. • Misdemeanors. • In short, a failure was basically a return to prison. • Nature of the outcome (return to prison or not) lead the authors to use a logistic regression.

  8. Method • Regression-Discontinuity Design • Sharp design: Cutoff value at 652 hours. • Logit Model. • Failure = f(Benefits, Eligibility, Control Variables) • Nonlinear relationship was suspected • Included hours and the square of hours in the model • Lost 106 subjects due to redefinition of follow-up period. • May cause selection bias. • Used Heckman procedure for correction.

  9. Results

  10. Findings Logit coefficient of -0.51 • Implies that the treatment group are 13% less likely to return to prison. • Program saves about $2,000 per participant. • Control variables replicated other common findings in the literature. • Ex: Older, and better educated ex-offenders are less likely to return to prison • Selectivity bias correction left the story unchanged. • Causal effect increased to 14% • To be expected, since only 9% of the cases were dropped.

  11. Evaluation of the Study (1) • Can we assume External Validity. • Yes. Program sample is very similar to population sample. • Is the regression model correctly specified? • Authors tried different specifications (ex: including length of sentence). • Among the varying specifications, treatment effects ranged from 5-15% • Is the assignment variable (hours) properly controlling for the treatment and control groups? • Yes. Correlation values are low for the control variables.

  12. Evaluation of the Study (2) • Issues with the Regression-Discontinuity Method • Distribution of hours • How smooth is the distribution before and after the threshold level? • How wide is the window • Bandwidth? • Do we believe the results? • There is something there (the effect is relatively large), but more can be done in present time. • Due to the time the study was conducted, it was hard to more.

  13. Any Questions ?

More Related