IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v25y2001i3p331-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative Solutions to the Problem of Selection Bias in an Analysis of Federal Residential Drug Treatment Programs

Author

Listed:
  • William Rhodes

    (Abt Associates)

  • Bernadette Pelissier

    (Federal Bureau of Prisons)

  • Gerald Gaes

    (Federal Bureau of Prisons)

  • William Saylor

    (Federal Bureau of Prisons)

  • Scott Camp

    (Federal Bureau of Prisons)

  • Susan Wallace

    (Federal Bureau of Prisons)

Abstract

In an evaluation of prison-based residential drug treatment programs, the authors use three different regression-based approaches to estimating treatment effects. Two of the approaches, the instrumental variable and the Heckman approach, attempt to minimize selection bias as an explanation for treatment outcomes. Estimates from these approaches are compared with estimates from a regression in which treatment is represented by a dummy variable. The article discusses the advantage of using more than one method to increase confidence in findings when possible selection bias is a concern. Three-year outcome data for 2,315 federal inmates are used in analyses where the authors separately examine criminal recidivism and relapse to drug use for men and women. Statistical tests lead the authors to conclude that treatment reduces criminal recidivism and relapse to drug use. The treatment effect was largest when the inference was based on the Heckman approach, somewhat smaller when based on the instrumental variable approach, and smallest when based on the traditional dummy variable approach. Treatment effects for females were not statistically significant.

Suggested Citation

  • William Rhodes & Bernadette Pelissier & Gerald Gaes & William Saylor & Scott Camp & Susan Wallace, 2001. "Alternative Solutions to the Problem of Selection Bias in an Analysis of Federal Residential Drug Treatment Programs," Evaluation Review, , vol. 25(3), pages 331-369, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:25:y:2001:i:3:p:331-369
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X0102500303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X0102500303
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X0102500303?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1995. "Assessing the Case for Social Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 85-110, Spring.
    2. Gary Burtless, 1995. "The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 63-84, Spring.
    3. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    4. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    5. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Miller, Holly Ventura & Miller, J. Mitchell & Barnes, J.C., 2016. "Reentry programming for opioid and opiate involved female offenders: Findings from a mixed methods evaluation," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 129-136.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    2. Astrid Grasdal, 2001. "The performance of sample selection estimators to control for attrition bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(5), pages 385-398, July.
    3. Deborah A. Cobb‐Clark & Thomas Crossley, 2003. "Econometrics for Evaluations: An Introduction to Recent Developments," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 79(247), pages 491-511, December.
    4. Christian Durán, 2004. "Evaluación microeconométrica de las políticas públicas de empleo: aspectos metodológicos," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 170(3), pages 107-133, september.
    5. Heckman, James J. & Lalonde, Robert J. & Smith, Jeffrey A., 1999. "The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1865-2097, Elsevier.
    6. Michael Lechner, 2002. "Mikroökonometrische Evaluation arbeitsmarktpolitischer Massnahmen," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2002 2002-20, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    7. Jeffrey Smith, 2000. "A Critical Survey of Empirical Methods for Evaluating Active Labor Market Policies," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 136(III), pages 247-268, September.
    8. Spermann, Alexander & Strotmann, Harald, 2005. "The Targeted Negative Income Tax (TNIT) in Germany: Evidence from a Quasi Experiment," ZEW Discussion Papers 05-68, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Regner, Hakan, 2002. "A nonexperimental evaluation of training programs for the unemployed in Sweden," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 187-206, April.
    10. Sianesi, Barbara, 2017. "Evidence of randomisation bias in a large-scale social experiment: The case of ERA," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 198(1), pages 41-64.
    11. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    12. Arild Aakvik & James J. Heckman & Edward J. Vytlacil, 2000. "Treatment Effects for Discrete Outcomes when Responses to Treatment Vary Among Observationally Identical Persons: An Application to Norwegian ..," NBER Technical Working Papers 0262, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1999. "The Pre-Program Earnings Dip and the Determinants of Participation in a Social Program: Implications for Simple Program Evaluation Strategies," NBER Working Papers 6983, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. de Brauw, Alan & Hoddinott, John, 2011. "Must conditional cash transfer programs be conditioned to be effective? The impact of conditioning transfers on school enrollment in Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 359-370, November.
    15. Miguel Angel Malo & Fernando Muñoz-Bullón, 2006. "Employment promotion measures and the quality of the job match for persons with disabilities," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 179(4), pages 79-111, September.
    16. David H. Dean & Robert C. Dolan & Robert M. Schmidt, 1999. "Evaluating the Vocational Rehabilitation Program Using Longitudinal Data," Evaluation Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 162-189, April.
    17. Jones A.M & Rice N, 2009. "Econometric Evaluation of Health Policies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    18. Dehejia, Rajeev H., 2005. "Program evaluation as a decision problem," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 141-173.
    19. Donal O'Neill, 2000. "Evaluating Labour Market Interventions," Economics Department Working Paper Series n990300, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    20. Michael Lechner, 2000. "An Evaluation of Public-Sector-Sponsored Continuous Vocational Training Programs in East Germany," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 35(2), pages 347-375.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:25:y:2001:i:3:p:331-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.