Table E.3: Program impacts on therapy only versus therapy plus cash

|||||De|pendent v|ariable (N=9|47)||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Ant<br>beh|isocial<br>aviors|Inc|ome|Self co|ntrol skills|Time p|references|Antivi<br>anticrim|olent and<br>inal values|
||Mean|p-value|Mean|p-value|Mean|p-value|Mean|p-value|Mean|p-value|
||dif.||dif.||dif.||dif.||dif.||
|Independent variable|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|(7)|(8)|(9)|(10)|
|_Both vs just therapy_|||||||||||
|Short term survey|-0.05|0.53|0.17|0.10|0.03|0.78|0.20|0.06|0.03|0.76|
|Long term survey|-0.22|0.02|-0.16|0.13|0.05|0.60|0.10|0.34|-0.12|0.17|
|_Both vs just cash_|||||||||||
|Short term survey|-0.22|0.01|-0.08|0.44|0.21|0.04|0.24|0.03|-0.03|0.77|
|Long term survey|-0.47|0.00|-0.06|0.55|0.29|0.00|0.13|0.21|-0.20|0.02|

_Notes:_ The table reports the mean difference between receiving both treatments and just one from intent to treat estimates, and corresponding p-values. We calculate the impact of each treatment arm in the short and long run, controlling for baseline covariates and block fixed effects. We focus on pre-defined composite measures, typically defined by survey module. The overall summary indexes are the standardized mean of its composite outcomes, standardized. Heterosketastic robust standard errors are reported in brackets. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 we shift from the incidence of drug selling reported in Table 3 to the frequency—the number of times men reported selling drugs in the past two weeks.

Control men committed 2.54 crimes in the previous two weeks, and this fell by almost one crime with therapy plus cash. All types of crime decreased by 20 to 100% with cash and therapy, but the statistically significant (and largest proportional) reductions are in burglary, muggings, and scams (e.g. the sale of non-existent goods, or down-payments for a hidden fortune). We do not adjust p-values for multiple hypothesis testing and so these comparisons across crimes should be taken with caution. In general the coefficients are negative and large in proportion to the control mean (20 to 100%) across all types of crime.

If this decline were persisted for the year, it would translate to 26 fewer crimes per person each year. Given the $530 cost of the two interventions, this is roughly $21 per crime, ignoring any other benefits of the program.

# **E.5 Heterogeneity analysis**

Table E.6 reports impact heterogeneity from an OLS regression of the antisocial behaviors summary index on baseline level of antisocial behaviors, treatment indicators, and interactions between treatment and baseline antisocial behaviors, controlling for baseline covariates and block fixed effects.<sup>18</sup> Therapy decreased the incidence of antisocial behaviors for the average participant, but men exhibiting more antisocial behavior at baseline saw larger declines. For example, men with average

> 18Recall that our measure of antisocial behaviors is a standardized index with mean zero. Therefore, the coefficient on the treatment indicator represents the treatment effect for an individual with mean level of antisocial behavior at baseline, while the coefficient on the interaction term is the additional effect for individuals whose baseline level of antisocial behaviors was 1 standard deviation higher than average.

xliii