Analytic Strategy Clause Samples

Analytic Strategy. Analyses were conducted in stata 16 using the N-SSATS survey data. A difference in differences approach using two-way fixed effects models with logistic regression examined the effect of Medicaid expansion on the likelihood of SUD treatment facilities offering criminal justice programs [162]. As a dichotomous dependent variable, the implications of this policy are measured using logistic regressions. A stepwise approach helped determine significance of the variables of interest, with the progressive addition of covariates across the four specifications. Specification 1 was the bivariate logistic regression estimating the relationship between Medicaid expansion on the likelihood of a facility offering a CJ program. Specification 2 controlled for state and facility characteristics. Specification 3, shown in Equation 1, added state and year fixed effects to the model used in Specification 2. Equation 1 Pr[CJfst = 1] = F(β0 + β1Expansionst + β2Xft + β3Zst + δs + τt + εfst) Expansionfst—my key independent variable of interest—is a dichotomous measure indicating a state’s Medicaid expansion status in state s and year t. Xft is a vector of facility f- year characteristics (accepts health service payment, receives specialty funding, offers payment assistance, ownership, offers wrap-around services), and Zst is a vector of state-year characteristics (race/ethnicity, political ideology, state budget, JAG Award, SUD rate, and socioeconomic status variables). State fixed effects, 𝜹s, controlled for time-invariant state characteristics such as geographic location; while, the year fixed effects, 𝜏t, addressed secular time trends in SUD treatment that affect the nation [163,164]. 𝜀fst is the error term. Finally, as shown in Equation 2, Specification 4 updated Specification 3 to include an interaction between Medicaid expansion and a state-year measure of SUD burden. Equation 2 Pr[CJfst = 1] = F(β0 + β1Expansionst × SUDst + β2Expansionfst + β3Xft + β4Zst + δs + τt + εfst) Expansionst x SUDst is an interaction between a state’s expansion status and its SUD rate. Based on results from Specification 4, marginal effects were calculated across a range of SUD rates to delve further into differential impact of expansion based on SUD burden. It is important to note that as a difference-in-difference model, the treatment and control groups were assumed to reflect similar trends in the outcome variable in the period prior to expansion. This assumption was tested using data gathered...
View Source
Analytic Strategy. We consider the following: (1) the association between recent paternal incarceration and fathers’ parenting; (2) the association between recent paternal incarceration and mothers’ parenting; (3) the mechanisms underlying the association between recent paternal incarceration and fathers’ parenting; and (4) the association between recent paternal incarceration and mothers’ repartnering. The OLS models estimating fathers’ parenting are an important first step because they provide a baseline estimate of how paternal incarceration is associated with parenting after adjusting for observed differences between individuals. Model 1 adjusts for a wide array of control variables that precede recent incarceration, including prior incarceration. Model 2 includes these controls and also adjusts for a lagged dependent variable. Model 3 is restricted to fathers who reported prior incarceration. By examining only those who experienced prior incarceration, we diminish unobserved heterogeneity and strengthen causal inference. Note that limiting the sample to previously incarcerated men necessitates estimating the link between an additional incarceration and parenting. These and all models include city fixed-effects. Then, we take two additional steps to diminish unobserved and observed heterogeneity. In Model 4, we present fixed-effects models that estimate how entry into recent incarceration (n = 97 for residential fathers, n = 246 for nonresidential fathers) is associated with changes in fathers’ parenting between the three- and five-year surveys, net of unobserved stable characteristics and observed time-varying characteristics. By examining within-person changes, we account for the possibility that some individuals may simply have a greater stable propensity for criminal activity or have other unobserved disadvantages associated with parenting, and we consider these our most robust estimates. Finally, in Model 5, we present results from propensity score matching models estimating changes in parenting between the three- and five-year survey (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ 1983). Propensity score matching, an alternative way of minimizing selection, approximates an experimental design by using observed variables to comprise a treatment group and a control group. Though this method does not eliminate unobserved heterogeneity, it makes the distribution of covariates between the treatment and control groups as similar as possible, which is especially beneficial given the ▇▇▇▇▇ differenc...
View Source
Analytic Strategy 
View Source

Related to Analytic Strategy

  • Analytics 1.1. IFS may track and analyze the usage of the IFS Offering for purposes of determining usage made of the IFS Offering, for the purposes of security, to assist customers, and for improving the Software and Services and the user experience in using such Software and Services. For example, IFS may use this information to help customers derive more value from the Software and Services, to understand and analyze trends, or to track which features are used most often in order to improve the Software and Services. IFS may share anonymous usage data with its service providers for the purpose of helping in such tracking, analysis and improvements. Additionally, IFS may share such anonymous usage data on an aggregate basis in the normal course of operating their business; for example, IFS may share information publicly to show trends about the general use of its software and services. TERMS - SERVICES

  • Strategy As an organization without operational services (fuel, maintenance, etc.), and in consideration that the majority of potential issues come from boat maintenance whereby the boats are personal property, the predominant strategy will be the minimization of on-site waste. With this approach, the organization will have minimal potential impact on the environment and reduce regulatory risk. To accomplish this, requirements will be established by policy, periodic communications shall occur, and audits will be utilized to provide feedback for improvement.

  • Program Monitoring The Contractor will make all records and documents required under this Agreement as outlined here, in OEC Policies and NHECC Policies available to the SRO or its designee, the SR Fiscal Officer or their designee and the OEC. Scheduled monitoring visits will take place twice a year. The SRO and OEC reserve the right to make unannounced visits.

  • Selection Planning Prior to the issuance to consultants of any requests for proposals, the proposed plan for the selection of consultants under the Project shall be furnished to the Association for its review and approval, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Appendix 1 to the Consultant Guidelines. Selection of all consultants’ services shall be undertaken in accordance with such selection plan as shall have been approved by the Association, and with the provisions of said paragraph 1.

  • ANALYSIS AND MONITORING The Custodian shall (a) provide the Fund (or its duly-authorized investment manager or investment adviser) with an analysis of the custody risks associated with maintaining assets with the Eligible Securities Depositories set forth on Schedule B hereto in accordance with section (a)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17f-7, and (b) monitor such risks on a continuing basis, and promptly notify the Fund (or its duly-authorized investment manager or investment adviser) of any material change in such risks, in accordance with section (a)(1)(i)(B) of Rule 17f-7.