IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Was There a Riverside Miracle? A Hierarchical Framework for Evaluating Programs with Grouped Data


  • Dehejia, Rajeev H


This article discusses the evaluation of programs implemented at multiple sites. Two frequently used methods are pooling the data or using fixed effects (an extreme version of which estimates separate models for each site). The former approach ignores site effects. The latter incorporates site effects but lacks a framework for predicting the impact of subsequent implementations of the program (e.g., would a new implementation resemble Riverside?). I present a hierarchical model that lies between these two extremes. Using data from the Greater Avenues for Independence demonstration, I demonstrate that the model captures much of the site-to-site variation of the treatment effects but has less uncertainty than estimating the treatment effect separately for each site. I also show that when predictive uncertainty is ignored, the treatment impact for the Riverside sites is significant, but when predictive uncertainty is considered, the impact for these sites is insignificant. Finally, I demonstrate that the model extrapolates site effects with reasonable accuracy when the site being predicted does not differ substantially from the sites already observed. For example, the San Diego treatment effects could have been predicted based on their site characteristics, but the Riverside effects are consistently underpredicted.

Suggested Citation

  • Dehejia, Rajeev H, 2003. "Was There a Riverside Miracle? A Hierarchical Framework for Evaluating Programs with Grouped Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-11, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bes:jnlbes:v:21:y:2003:i:1:p:1-11

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. repec:cup:etheor:v:11:y:1995:i:1:p:105-21 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-1054, July.
    3. Meyer, Bruce D & Viscusi, W Kip & Durbin, David L, 1995. "Workers' Compensation and Injury Duration: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 322-340, June.
    4. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
    5. Florens, J.P. & Rolin, J.M., 1994. "Bayes, Bootsrap, Moments," Papers 94.336, Toulouse - GREMAQ.
    6. Koenker, Roger & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1982. "Robust Tests for Heteroscedasticity Based on Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 43-61, January.
    7. Kandel, Shmuel & Stambaugh, Robert F, 1996. " On the Predictability of Stock Returns: An Asset-Allocation Perspective," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(2), pages 385-424, June.
    8. Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Keueger, 1991. "Does Compulsory School Attendance Affect Schooling and Earnings?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 979-1014.
    9. Sims, Christopher A & Uhlig, Harald, 1991. "Understanding Unit Rooters: A Helicopter Tour," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(6), pages 1591-1599, November.
    10. Hahn, Jinyong, 1995. "Bootstrapping Quantile Regression Estimators," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(01), pages 105-121, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Arpino, Bruno & Mealli, Fabrizia, 2011. "The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 1770-1780, April.
    2. Cyrille Kamdem, 2016. "Collective Marketing and Cocoa Farmer's Price in Cameroon," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(4), pages 2535-2555.
    3. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2013. "Comparing Treatments across Labor Markets: An Assessment of Nonexperimental Multiple-Treatment Strategies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1691-1707, December.
    4. V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Jacob A. Klerman, 2006. "Evaluating the Differential Effects of Alternative Welfare-to-Work Training Components: A Reanalysis of the California GAIN Program," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(3), pages 521-566, July.
    5. Hunt Allcott, 2012. "Site Selection Bias in Program Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 18373, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Dehejia, Rajeev & Pop-Eleches, Cristian & Samii, Cyrus, 2015. "From Local to Global: External Validity in a Fertility Natural Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 9300, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    7. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    8. Dehejia Rajeev, 2015. "Experimental and Non-Experimental Methods in Development Economics: A Porous Dialectic," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 47-69, June.
    9. Donald M. Pianto & Sergei Soares, 2004. "Use Of Survey Design For The Evaluation Of Social Programs: The Pnad And Peti," Anais do XXXII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 32th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 133, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pósgraduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    10. Dehejia, Rajeev, 2013. "The Porous Dialectic: Experimental and Non-Experimental Methods in Development Economics," WIDER Working Paper Series 011, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bes:jnlbes:v:21:y:2003:i:1:p:1-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.