C APITALIZING ON N ONRANDOM A SSIGNMENT TO T REATMENTS : A R EGRESSION -D ISCONTINUITY E VALUATION OF A C RIME -C ONTROL P ROGRAM R ICHARD A. B ERK AND M ARCH , 1983 D AVID R AUMA Program evaluation, spring 2010 Zuhdi Hashweh Sophio Bendiashvili

T

HE

P

ROGRAM

  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.

T

HE

P

ROGRAM

(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).

D

ATA

   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.

D

ATA

(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.

S ELECTED P OPULATION , B Y S AMPLE C HARACTERISTICS OF THE C ALIFORNIA Y EAR , 1977-1979, C OMPARED P AROLE W ITH THE F INAL  External Validity  Sample looks similar to the population from which it was drawn.

M

ODEL

S

PECIFICATION

   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.

M

ETHOD

 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.

R ESULTS

F

INDINGS

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.

E

VALUATION OF THE

S

TUDY

(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.

E

VALUATION OF THE

S

TUDY

(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.