Table 3.

Comparing experimental and nonexperimental estimates of the effects of low poverty neighborhoods on an economic index

	Census Tract Poverty Rates			Economic Index for High-Poverty	Estimated Effect of Low-Poverty Nbhd on Economic Index
	Low-Poverty Group Mean	High-Poverty Group Mean	Poverty Rate Diff.		Coeff. (SE)	P-Value	N
I. Prior to trimming and reweighting
A. Experimental estimate
(A1) MTO exp TOT (std wgts)	0.199	0.368	−0.169	−0.229	−0.012	0.863	2543
					(0.067)
B. Nonexperimental estimates (unweighted)
(B1) PSID nonexp estimate (< 25% poverty)	0.102	0.337	−0.235	−0.262	0.101	0.021	4299
					(0.044)
(B2) MTO nonexp est (< 25% poverty)	0.177	0.413	−0.236	−0.369	0.096	0.036	1770
					(0.046)
C. Nonexp estimate matching gap (unweighted)
(C1) PSID nonexp same poverty gap	0.148	0.319	−0.171	−0.250	0.107	0.018	2512
					(0.045)
(C2) Within study (MTO) nonexp same pov gap	0.199	0.370	−0.171	−0.368	0.053	0.295	1393
					(0.050)
II. Trimming and reweighting to make samples more demographically similar
D. Reweighted quasi-experimental estimate
(D1) MTO exp TOT (rewgtd)	0.200	0.369	−0.169	−0.111	−0.131	0.276	2532
					(0.120)
E. Reweighted non-experimental estimate matching poverty gap/level
(E1) PSID nonexp same poverty gap/level (rewgtd)	0.171	0.338	−0.167	−0.253	0.112	0.103	850
(< 25% poverty)					(0.068)
(E2) MTO nonexp same poverty gap/level (rewgtd)	0.183	0.353	−0.170	−0.256	0.069	0.316	1738
(< 25% poverty)					(0.069)
F. Reweighted non-experimental matching poverty gap/level & disadv gap
(F1) PSID nonexp same pov & disadv. gap/level	0.171	0.338	−0.166	−0.280	0.121	0.095	850
					(0.073)
(F2) MTO nonexp same pov & disadv. gap/level	0.183	0.353	−0.170	−0.249	0.091	0.188	1738
					(0.068)
G. Reweighted non-experimental matching poverty gap/level & disadv/years gap
(G1) PSID nonexp same poverty, disadv., and years	0.171	0.336	−0.165	−0.244	0.083	0.200	850
					(0.065)
(G2) MTO nonexp same poverty, disadv., and years	0.183	0.354	−0.171	−0.332	0.120	0.120	1738
					(0.077)
H. Reweighted non-experimental matching poverty gap/level & disadv/# of moves
(H1) PSID nonexp same poverty, disadv., and moves	0.171	0.337	−0.166	−0.247	0.079	0.222	850
					(0.065)
(H2) MTO nonexp same poverty, disadv., and moves	0.183	0.366	−0.183	−0.314	0.093	0.112	1738
					(0.058)

Notes: This table presents the estimated effects of living in low-poverty neighborhoods on an index of economic outcomes for female adults. The economic index is an average z-score of employment and earnings measures (standardized against the PSID female sample). The MTO TOT (row A1) compares the experimental (low poverty voucher) and control groups using a regression (with the standard MTO weights) and scaling up the intent-to-treat estimate by the inverse of the compliance rate. This table’s measure of neighborhood poverty exposure is constructed for the MTO sample to be parallel to the PSID so it uses only biannual addresses during the present study’s follow-up time. In Row A1, the Low-Poverty Group Mean is the experimental complier mean, the Poverty Rate Diff is the TOT for the effect on the mean neighborhood poverty rate during follow-up, and the High-Poverty Group Mean is the implied experimental control complier mean (the experimental complier mean minus the TOT). The non-experimental treatment estimates are generated by first creating high- and low- neighborhood poverty subsamples. Rows B1 and B2 divide the sample into high and low groups at 25% poverty. In rows C1 and C2, the high and low poverty groups have been constructed such that the difference between them in average poverty rate is similar to the size of the MTO experimental TOT of about 17 percentage points. The nonexperimental analyses regress the outcome on an indicator for the low-poverty group as well as the best-available controls for each sample. The MTO non-experimental treatment estimates use only the Section 8 (traditional voucher) and control groups and the model includes an indicator for the Section 8 group. In Panel I, the nonexperimental estimates are unweighted. In Panel II, the samples have been made more similar to each other on basic demographics by trimming and reweighting the data.

Here is some additional detail about how we construct the high and low nonexperimental groups for rows C1 and C2 in Panel I. The sample is initially split at 25% average neighborhood poverty. The MTO average neighborhood poverty (for the combined controls and traditional voucher group) is about 17.7% among those with average neighborhood poverty rates below 25 percent. To produce a contrast comparable to the MTO TOT, we create a “high poverty” group starting with respondents near 25 percent neighborhood poverty and incrementally expanding (by 0.5 percentage points) to encompass higher neighborhood poverty rates until we achieve a contrast of about 17 percentage points between the high and low poverty groups.