Table 8: The impact of homicide rates on NEET rates using the ENOE

|**Panel A. Men**<br>**Dependent variable: Rates fo**<br>Timeperiod: 2006-2010|**r NiNis**|||Share o|f NiNi's||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Ages 12-14<br>(1)|Ages 15-17<br>(2)|Ages 18-20<br>(3)|Ages 21-24<br>(4)|Ages 12-14<br>(5)|Ages 15-17<br>(6)|Ages 18-20<br>(7)|Ages 21-24<br>(8)|
|Homicide Rate|0.000358<br>(0.000376)|0.000257<br>(0.000796)|0.000154<br>(0.000659)|0.000949<br>(0.00119)|||||
|Drug Related Homicide Rate|||||1.89e-05|-0.000258|-0.000251|-4.13e-05|
||||||(5.77e-05)|(0.000298)|(0.000265)|(0.000714)|
|Constant|0.00788***|0.0287***|0.0185***|0.0149***|0.00853***|0.0300***|0.0196***|0.0168***|
||(0.00181)|(0.00329)|(0.00322)|(0.00378)|(0.00164)|(0.00293)|(0.00291)|(0.00318)|
|Observations|5,018|4,949|4,731|4,743|5,018|4,949|4,731|4,743|
|R-squared|0.264|0.254|0.240|0.274|0.264|0.254|0.240|0.274|
|**Panel A. Women**||||Share o|f NiNi's||||
||Ages 12-14|Ages 15-17|Ages 18-20|Ages 21-24|Ages 12-14|Ages 15-17|Ages 18-20|Ages 21-24|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|(7)|(8)|
|Homicide Rate|-0.000405|-0.000449|0.000922|0.000511|||||
||(0.000619)|(0.00168)|(0.00228)|(0.00176)|||||
|Drug Related Homicide Rate|||||-0.000133|-0.000288|0.00109|0.000892|
||||||(0.000246)|(0.000442)|(0.000998)|(0.000657)|
|Constant|0.0106***|0.0502***|0.0893***|0.0858***|0.0102***|0.0502***|0.0880***|0.0842***|
||(0.00209)|(0.00556)|(0.00728)|(0.00638)|(0.00182)|(0.00454)|(0.00609)|(0.00573)|
|Observations|4,989|4,965|4,840|4,970|4,989|4,965|4,840|4,970|
|Rd|0272|0328|0318|0317|0272|0328|0318|0317|
|-square<br>**Notes.**Dependent variable is the the<br>to the national homicide rate per 100,0<br>Security (Consejo Nacional de Seguri<br>available from 2006 to 2010. Standard|.<br>rates of NiNi's (indivi<br>00 inhabitants in 200<br>dad Pública) of the Fe<br>errors clustered at t|.<br>duals that do not w o<br>7 (general homicide<br>deral Government a<br>he municipality level|.<br>rk or study) and emp<br>rate of 8.3 and drug r<br>nd include all deaths<br>in parentheses. *** p|.<br>loyment by age grou<br>elated homicide rate<br>by "presumed delinq<br><0.01, ** p<0.05, * p|.<br>p, calculated from E<br>of 2.6). Drug-relate<br>uent rivalry". All reg<br><0.1|.<br>NOE survey data. Ho<br>d homicides are colle<br>ressions include mun|.<br>micide rates are nor<br>cted by the National<br>icipality and year fix|.<br>malized according<br>Council of Public<br>ed effects. Data|

# **Impacts on Educational Achievement: Inputs and Learning**

Educational attainment is not the only potential educational consequence of violence. It is possible to hypothesize that although children are going to school at the same rates, there is a lower or higher quality of education being provided to them. Alternatively, one could think that due to stress, even the same quality of education produces lower levels of learning. In that case, we would expect to see an impact on learning outcomes and cognitive ability.

We cannot directly test the effects on education quality. However, we can look at the effect on inputs. Table 9 shows the differences-in-difference estimate on the impact of homicide rates (and “drug-related homicide rates”) on the number of teachers in the municipality (columns 1 to 5); and on the number of schools (columns 6 to 10). We do not find any significant impact, although the coefficients are less precisely estimated than in the case of students and enrollment rates. Only one specification shows a significant coefficient, which is rather small at 0.6%. However, this is the least preferred specification as it does not include fixed effects.

The effect on the number of teachers could be explained by either teachers moving out of crime-ridden areas, or through the changes in demand for schooling services. Interestingly, there is 30