1. 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.