Table 3.

Propensity Score Matching Estimators of the Effect of Household Migration and Remittances Status on School Enrollment, Black Children, PSLSD 1993.

	Treated E(Y) c	Controls E(Y) c	Difference (treatment effect) c	Standard error
MNR vs. NM a
ATT	.854	.894	−.041†	.023
ATU	.902	.872	−.030	.021
ATE	--	--	−.031	.020
N b	492	3,429
MR vs. NM a
ATT	.910	.886	.024*	.011
ATU	.900	.916	.017†	.009
ATE	--	--	.020*	.008
N b	2,901	4,131
MR vs. MNR a
ATT	.912	.846	.066*	.027
ATU	.862	.912	.050*	.021
ATE	--	--	.063**	.021
N b	2,003	441

^aNM, MNR and MR respectively refer to households with no migrants, households with migrants but not remittances, and household with remittances. MNR, MR, and MR households are considered the treated group in the three matching models, respectively. ATT refers to the average treatment effect for the treated. ATU refers to the average treatment effect for the untreated. ATE refers to the average treatment effect.

^bMatching leads to a smaller sample size, as only comparable cases are used in the analysis. Specifically, about 73% of the cases are kept in the analysis contrasting MNR with NM, and 82% and 58% are retained for analyses comparing MR with NM, and comparing MR with MNR, respectively. This can be considered evidence of good matches.

^cThe first two columns show adjusted enrollment rates. The third column shows differences in adjusted enrollment rates between treated and control groups.

^†p<0.1

^*p<.05

^**p<.01

^***p<.001