In Simple Words
Imagine trying to test if wearing running shoes makes people faster, but fast people are naturally more likely to buy running shoes. Using a lottery to hand out running shoes completely breaks that confounding connection, ensuring the only difference between the two groups is pure chance.
NYC summer-job applicants
- Did not win lottery
- Comparison group
- Won lottery
- Participation rose by over 50 percentage points
NYC applicants, 2005–2008. Random selection created a strong participation difference; not every winner took a job.
See source →Research question
Unobserved youth characteristics (such as motivation, conscientiousness, or family background) confound observational comparisons between employed and unemployed youth, making unadjusted comparisons unreliable.
Participants
N = 163,447 applicants randomized across hundreds of local provider lotteries in New York City (2005–2008).
Study Design
Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) model using randomly assigned lottery win status as an instrument for actual SYEP program participation, conditioning on provider-year-age lottery pool fixed effects.
Results
First-stage F-statistics exceed standard weak-instrument thresholds, showing that winning a lottery increases SYEP participation by over 50 percentage points, isolating clean local average treatment effects (LATE) free from selection bias.
Takeaway
1. Utilize administrative randomized selection lotteries as instruments when evaluating oversubscribed public interventions to isolate unconfounded causal parameters.
Source and citation
See source →Read alongside the research
Plain-English glossary
Original explanations, informed by the references below. Examples are illustrations, not data from the studies above. The research text stays unchanged.
- Percentage points
The difference between two percentages.
ExampleA rise from 40% to 50% is 10 percentage points. Relative to the starting value, that is a 25% increase.
Office for National Statistics · Percentages ↗Read more about percentage points →