to see if program cost causes more in savings. $1.74   What is this? How and why are they using it? Advantages and weaknesses in this evaluation Meta-analysis  looking past studies on same topic; expected effect; summarizing expected effect across many studies. +:can compare results—how similar? Omitted less rigorous evals. Less labor; cheap. Theoretical foundation for having drug court; compensates for limitations of indiv. methods; more confident that there is an effect. -:maybe differences due to difs in implementation; Multivariate regression with statistical controls  gave general idea of relationship (overview of what impacted recid. Rates). Also what variables influence recid (for risk score matching).  +:easy -:still have unobservable characteristics Propensity score analysis  match opt in to not opt in based on propensity to participate; among eligible, all given a rating to opt in; logit model  +:deals with selection; if match closely, just seeing program effect. -some unobservables not accounted for. Risk score matching  matching based on factors associated with recidivism; logit  +:deal selection to the extent related to recidivism -:14 variables; reduced covariates so could make more matches. Reflexive control  pre-post measure; select same type of people before program existed. Ctrl for changes in recid over time due to other causes.  +: accounts for other changes in recidivism; -:maturation; not controlling for unmeasured innate differences Cost-benefit analysis  to see if program cost causes more in savings. $1.74  +: quantifying benefits; have a number to gauge if program worth it. Purely court costs (so more benefits—conservative? so trustworthy? Depends on goal of eval.) -:not long-term impacts: employment, health care. They didn't use these. Why not? Instrumental variables  couldn’t find one.  a better (more precise) estimate of program impacts Regression discontinuity  no score; elect in, not quantifiable score that allowed people into tmt./ ethics.  apples to apples: controlling selection.