Gap-closing estimands with 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals
| . | Black . | Latino . | White . | B–W . | L–W . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed Graduation Rate | 79.0% | 78.6% | 90.3% | ||
| Observed gap (percentage points) | 11.3 | 11.7 | |||
| (1) Intervention: Very Low Exposure to Policing | |||||
| Counterfactual graduation rate | 84.0% | 82.2% | 91.0% | ||
| (83.2, 85.2) | (81.5, 83.0) | (90.4, 91.3) | |||
| Counterfactual gap (percentage points) | 7.0 | 8.8 | |||
| (5.6, 7.7) | (7.7, 9.5) | ||||
| Percentage of gap closed | 38.6% | 25.4% | |||
| (32.4, 50.9) | (19.5, 34.3) | ||||
| (2) Intervention: White Exposure to Policing | |||||
| Counterfactual graduation rate | 82.1% | 80.7% | 90.3% | ||
| (81.6, 82.9) | (80.2, 81.1) | (90.0, 90.6) | |||
| Counterfactual gap (percentage points) | 8.2 | 9.7 | |||
| (7.4, 8.7) | (9.1, 10.2) | ||||
| Percentage of gap closed | 27.8% | 17.5% | |||
| (23.2, 34.5) | (13.4, 22.0) | ||||
| (3) Intervention: Policing as Function of Crime | |||||
| Counterfactual graduation rate | 79.0% | 78.9% | 90.3% | ||
| (78.7, 79.5) | (78.5, 79.2) | (89.9, 90.6) | |||
| Counterfactual gap (percentage points) | 11.2 | 11.7 | |||
| (10.7, 11.7) | (10.9, 11.9) | ||||
| Percentage of gap closed | 1.1% | 3.4% | |||
| (−2.3, 5.1) | (−0.4, 6.1) | ||||
| (4) Intervention: Policing as Function of Crime Based on 2009–2010 Cohort | |||||
| Counterfactual graduation rate | 80.4% | 79.6% | 90.5% | ||
| (80.0, 80.9) | (79.3, 79.9) | (90.1, 90.8) | |||
| Counterfactual gap (percentage points) | 10.2 | 10.9 | |||
| (9.5, 10.6) | (10.4, 11.3) | ||||
| Percentage of gap closed | 10.3% | 6.9% | |||
| (7.6, 15.4) | (4.0, 10.5) |
| . | Black . | Latino . | White . | B–W . | L–W . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed Graduation Rate | 79.0% | 78.6% | 90.3% | ||
| Observed gap (percentage points) | 11.3 | 11.7 | |||
| (1) Intervention: Very Low Exposure to Policing | |||||
| Counterfactual graduation rate | 84.0% | 82.2% | 91.0% | ||
| (83.2, 85.2) | (81.5, 83.0) | (90.4, 91.3) | |||
| Counterfactual gap (percentage points) | 7.0 | 8.8 | |||
| (5.6, 7.7) | (7.7, 9.5) | ||||
| Percentage of gap closed | 38.6% | 25.4% | |||
| (32.4, 50.9) | (19.5, 34.3) | ||||
| (2) Intervention: White Exposure to Policing | |||||
| Counterfactual graduation rate | 82.1% | 80.7% | 90.3% | ||
| (81.6, 82.9) | (80.2, 81.1) | (90.0, 90.6) | |||
| Counterfactual gap (percentage points) | 8.2 | 9.7 | |||
| (7.4, 8.7) | (9.1, 10.2) | ||||
| Percentage of gap closed | 27.8% | 17.5% | |||
| (23.2, 34.5) | (13.4, 22.0) | ||||
| (3) Intervention: Policing as Function of Crime | |||||
| Counterfactual graduation rate | 79.0% | 78.9% | 90.3% | ||
| (78.7, 79.5) | (78.5, 79.2) | (89.9, 90.6) | |||
| Counterfactual gap (percentage points) | 11.2 | 11.7 | |||
| (10.7, 11.7) | (10.9, 11.9) | ||||
| Percentage of gap closed | 1.1% | 3.4% | |||
| (−2.3, 5.1) | (−0.4, 6.1) | ||||
| (4) Intervention: Policing as Function of Crime Based on 2009–2010 Cohort | |||||
| Counterfactual graduation rate | 80.4% | 79.6% | 90.5% | ||
| (80.0, 80.9) | (79.3, 79.9) | (90.1, 90.8) | |||
| Counterfactual gap (percentage points) | 10.2 | 10.9 | |||
| (9.5, 10.6) | (10.4, 11.3) | ||||
| Percentage of gap closed | 10.3% | 6.9% | |||
| (7.6, 15.4) | (4.0, 10.5) |
Note: “Percentage of gap closed” is defined as (observed–counterfactual) / observed. Table A5 in the online appendix presents the average assignment probabilities by race/ethnicity under each of the four interventions.