In addition to the models previously presented on education and unemployment, two similar models are presented in Table 6.3. Model 1 basically includes the same variables as in Table 4.4 on school dropout, but uses the smaller sample. The coefficients have the same signs when the smaller sample is used. The advantage of using this smaller sample is that it contains additional information, allowing the inclusion of indicators for risk factors relevant to identify youth at risk. Model 2 includes such indicators, i.e., one for substance abuse, which will be discussed below, and domestic violence in marriage. Because domestic violence is only observed for married youth, the residual comparison group is all unmarried youth, i.e., also those experiencing domestic violence. Although the interpretation of the findings is not straightforward the results are shown in Table 6.3. It is revealed that being married without experiencing violence still has a statistically significantly positive effect on the probability of dropping out of school. Thus, regardless of the presence of domestic violence, being married increases the probability of leaving school compared to being unmarried. When domestic violence is present in the household the probability of dropping out is higher (but statistically insignificantly so) than among married youth without domestic violence.

In addition it is found that migration has a statistically significant negative effect on the probability of leaving school, thus lending more support to the positive selfselection hypothesis for migrants.

|Table 6.3: Probabilityof Youth<br>|beingOut of Sc<br>Model 1<br>|hool in H<br>|aiti,2001<sup>37</sup><br>Mode<br>|l 2|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Dropout|Coefficient|t|Coefficient|t|
|Age|0.615|1.09|0.507|0.89|
|Age squared|-0.010|-0.69|-0.007|-0.50|
|Metropolitan*|0.411|1.72|0.349|1.43|
|Rural*|0.235|1.03|0.262|1.13|
|Primary education*|-1.080|-2.08|-0.911|-1.69|
|Secondary education*|-2.054|-3.90|-1.885|-3.44|
|Migrated*|-0.311|-1.60|-0.355|-1.79|
|Married (no violence)*|1.156|4.04|1.243|4.48|
|Married (domestic violence)*|||1.654|4.39|
|Substance abuse*|||0.381|1.77|
|Constant<br>|-7.143|-1.27|-6.321|-1.11|
|Pseudo R<sup>2</sup>|0.309||0.34|9|

_Note:_ No. observations: 593. * is a discrete dummy variable; t is the test of the underlying coefficient being equal to 0. _Substance abuse_ includes: ever used drugs, know drug user, use alcohol frequently, and smoke. _Domestic violence_ includes: beat/beaten while pregnant, beaten in front of child, pushed, slapped, thrown things at, kicked or hit, choked, been violent, and forced sex. Variables left out: urban, no education, single. In the first model _married_ includes also married experiencing violence.

_Source:_ Own calculations based on ECVH 2001.

education may catch some of the effect from the household head’s education and thereby lead to overestimation of the coefficients (when included, however, the household head’s education was found to be insignificantly different from zero).

37 Gender, family size, family size squared, religion, and indicators for feelings of insecurity and experienced crime also came out statistically insignificantly different from zero.

30