Finally, to complement the evidence on the self‐reported incidence of engagement in anti‐social behavior and/or criminal activity, we examine the reported incidence of being a crime victim. The respondent was asked if he/she was a victim of stealing, assault, alcohol‐related crimes, or trespassing during the last 6 months. The only statistically significant result is for trespassing, in which the program is estimated to increase the probability of being a victim of trespassing, by about 7 percentage points. While this result is somewhat difficult to explain, it could result from participants moving to areas where trespassing is more likely to occur. With regard to the other three crimes, the estimated difference in difference effects are all negative but not statistically insignificant. However, for alcohol and assault, the 95 percent confidence intervals range from approximately a 16 percentage point reduction to no reduction, meaning that we cannot rule out substantial effects.

Overall, in contrast to the estimated effects on anti‐social behavior, there is little robust evidence that the program reduced participants’ in or exposure to crime. Besides the estimated effect on vandalism reported above, in no case was the estimated effect on crime negative and statistically significant at the 5 percent level. Furthermore, in many cases, the point estimates tend to be close to zero. However, the estimates are sufficiently imprecise that we cannot rule out the possibility that the program had substantial effects on assault or stealing.

# 5.2.4 Effects on Employment and Savings

To better understand these results, it is useful to examine the potential intermediary role of labor market outcomes. In the Follow‐up Survey, the treatment group was asked if they had a wage employment after the program participation. We find that 43.6% of program participants report having a job after the program participation, with 49% and 39.2% for OJT (internship) participants and YJC (public works) participants, respectively. Unfortunately, the same question cannot be asked for the control group. However, the control group has been asked about having a wage employment in the last 6 months, and we find that only 15.1% report to have been employed. This provides some indication that the rate of wage employment in the treatment group is substantially higher. Interestingly, 40.8% of employed OJT participants and 32.4% of employed YJC participants report staying with the same employer after graduation from the program. Furthermore, employed treatments and controls report similar average working hours per week, of 43.6 and 44 hours, respectively. Hence, it appears that the main difference between treatments and controls may be coming from the extensive margin through employment rates, rather than through the intensive margin for those employed.

Besides raising employment rates, the program also appears to have had beneficial effects on job search behavior. To look at job search behavior, the sample is restricted to youth that report to being unemployed in both periods. In the treatment group, the share of youth seeking wage employment in the last 3 months increased from 21.1% to 32.6%, or 11.5 percentage points (this change is significant at a 1% level). In the control group, the share of job searching unemployed declined from 21.3% to 18.9%, which statistically insignificant.<sup>17</sup> Program participants are much more likely than controls to report that they

> 17 The results on job search are not reported here for brevity, but are available from the authors upon request.

29