PREVENTING YOUTH VIOLENCE and DROPOUT: a RANDOMIZED FIELD EXPERIMENT Sara Heller Harold A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES PREVENTING YOUTH VIOLENCE AND DROPOUT: A RANDOMIZED FIELD EXPERIMENT Sara Heller Harold A. Pollack Roseanna Ander Jens Ludwig Working Paper 19014 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19014 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 May 2013 This project was supported by the University of Chicago’s Office of the Provost, Center for Health Administration Studies, and the School of Social Service Administration, as well as NICHD award R21HD061757, CDC grant 5U01CE001949-02 to the University of Chicago Center for Youth Violence Prevention, grants from the Joyce, MacArthur, McCormick, Polk, and Spencer foundations, the Exelon corporation, and the Chicago Community Trust, and visiting scholar awards to Jens Ludwig from the Russell Sage Foundation and LIEPP at Sciences Po. We are grateful to the staff of Youth Guidance and World Sport Chicago (the two non-profit organizations that implemented the intervention we study here), to Wendy Fine of Youth Guidance, who designed and implemented required program data systems, to the Chicago Public Schools, to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority for providing Illinois Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) data through an agreement with the Illinois State Police, and to Ellen Alberding, Jon Baron, Dan Black, Laura Brinkman, Carol Brown, Kerwin Charles, Philip Cook, Stephen Coussens, Hon. Richard M. Daley, Christine Devitt Westley, Ken Dodge, Steve Gilmore, Jonathan Guryan, Hon. Curtis Heaston, Ron Huberman, Brian Jacob, Rachel Johnston, Ilyana Kuziemko, Ben Lahey, Ann Marie Lipinski, John MacDonald, Sonya Malunda, Jeanne Marsh, Michael Masters, Michael McCloskey, Al McNally, Ernst Melchior, Douglas Miller, Michelle Morrison, Duff Morton, Sendhil Mullainathan, Mark Myrent, Derek Neal, Stacy Norris, Amy Nowell, Devah Pager, Steve Raudenbush, Sean Reardon, Thomas Rosenbaum, Anuj Shah, David Showalter, Sebastian Sotelo, Laurence Steinberg, Ashley Van Ness, Nina Vinik, Paula Wolff, and Sabrina Yusuf for valuable assistance and suggestions. We also thank seminar participants at the Boeing Corporation, Case Western University, Columbia University, Duke University, Erasmus University, Harvard University, the MacArthur Foundation, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York City Department of Probation, the joint New York Federal Reserve / New York University education workshop, Stanford University, the University of Chicago, University of Miami, and the University of Virginia for valuable comments. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control. All opinions and any errors are our own. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2013 by Sara Heller, Harold A. Pollack, Roseanna Ander, and Jens Ludwig. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Preventing Youth Violence and Dropout: A Randomized Field Experiment Sara Heller, Harold A. Pollack, Roseanna Ander, and Jens Ludwig NBER Working Paper No. 19014 May 2013 JEL No. I24,I3,K42 ABSTRACT Improving the long-term life outcomes of disadvantaged youth remains a top policy priority in the United States, although identifying successful interventions for adolescents – particularly males – has proven challenging. This paper reports results from a large randomized controlled trial of an intervention for disadvantaged male youth grades 7-10 from high-crime Chicago neighborhoods. The intervention was delivered by two local non-profits and included regular interactions with a pro-social adult, after-school programming, and – perhaps the most novel ingredient – in-school programming designed to reduce common judgment and decision-making problems related to automatic behavior and biased beliefs, or what psychologists call cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). We randomly assigned 2,740 youth to programming or to a control group; about half those offered programming participated, with the average participant attending 13 sessions. Program participation reduced violent-crime arrests during the program year by 8.1 per 100 youth (a 44 percent reduction). It also generated sustained gains in schooling outcomes equal to 0.14 standard deviations during the program year and 0.19 standard deviations during the follow-up year, which we estimate could lead to higher graduation rates of 3-10 percentage points (7-22 percent). Depending on how one monetizes the social costs of crime, the benefit-cost ratio may be as high as 30:1 from reductions in criminal activity alone. Sara Heller Roseanna Ander University of Chicago University of Chicago Crime Lab Harris School of Public Policy 720 North Franklin Street, Suite 400 1155 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60654 Chicago, IL 60637 [email protected] [email protected] Jens Ludwig Harold A. Pollack University of Chicago University of Chicago 1155 East 60th Street School of Social Service Administration Chicago, IL 60637 969 East 60th Street and NBER Chicago, IL 60637 [email protected] [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION Improving the long-term life outcomes of disadvantaged youth remains a top policy priority in the United States. The average four-year high school graduation rate in the 50 largest urban school districts in America is just 53 percent (Swanson 2009). Nearly 70 percent of black male dropouts will spend time in prison by their mid-30s (Western & Pettit 2010). Among males ages 15-24, the homicide 2010 rate for blacks was 18 times that of whites (75 vs. 4/100,000). Because homicide victims are disproportionately young, more years of potential life are lost to homicide among black males than to the nation’s leading overall killer – heart disease.1 Long-term progress in addressing these problems has been limited, in part because finding ways to improve outcomes for disadvantaged youth (particularly males) has proven challenging.2 Despite technological changes that have increased the demand for educated workers over time (Goldin & Katz 2008), the high school graduation rate in America has not changed much since the 1970s.3 While mortality rates from almost every major leading cause of death have declined dramatically over the past half century, the homicide rate today is not much different from what it was in 1950 – or even in 1900 (Pinker 2011, p. 92).4 The persistence of these problems, and the limited success of previous social-policy efforts, often lead to the conclusion that very intensive intervention is needed to overcome the 1 Figures are for years of potential life by 65. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html 2 For example, the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) does not give a single dropout-prevention program its top rating of “strong effects” (defined as several randomized experiments or quasi- experiments all pointing in the same direction, or one large randomized experiment). The Coalition for Evidence- Based Policy does not list a single program for addressing high school graduation rates among its “Top Tier” of programs. The evidence about how to reduce youth violence is not much stronger; see Appendix A for details. 3 While Heckman and LaFontaine (2010) show high school graduation rates were flat in the U.S. as a whole from the 1970s through 2000, Murnane (2013) shows graduation rates have increased over the past 10 years. But the share of those born in 1986-90 with a diploma is 84% - not much higher than the 81% for those born in 1946-50. 4 From 1950 to 2005, mortality rates declined by 45 percent from all causes, 64 percent from deaths due to heart disease, 74 percent from cerebrovascular diseases, 58 percent from influenza and pneumonia, 50 percent for unintentional injuries, and 20 percent for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. Aside from homicide, the two other exceptions to the long-run decline are cancer and diabetes mellitus (National Center for Health Statistics 2009). 3 powerful “root causes” that may drive adverse youth outcomes (see, for example, Garbarino 1999, Chapter 7). The social conditions most often implicated in discussions about adolescent outcomes – economic disadvantage, under-performing public schools, the way children are parented and socialized growing up – are all difficult to change, and their consequences may be challenging to overcome. A related worry is that the effects of adverse social conditions may be too entrenched by adolescence, so that interventions should focus more on early childhood when people may be more malleable (Knudsen, et al. 2006; Shonkoff & Phillips 2000). However, there may be a different piece of this problem that lends itself to lower-cost policy intervention: The effects of disadvantaged social conditions on youth outcomes may be at least partly mediated by errors in judgment and decision-making. Kahneman (2011) notes that all of us rely on automatic, intuitive decision-making, which is sometimes generated from mistaken inferences and beliefs. However the consequences may vary greatly by circumstance. The likelihood of holding specific biased