• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Measuring the effects of alcohol-supply restrictions in indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia
 

Measuring the effects of alcohol-supply restrictions in indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia

on

  • 1,336 views

An empirical approach to assessing the impact of the 2008 alcohol bans in indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia. We use the State Government's own policy goals to assess whether the bans can ...

An empirical approach to assessing the impact of the 2008 alcohol bans in indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia. We use the State Government's own policy goals to assess whether the bans can be shown to have had a significant effect.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,336
Views on SlideShare
1,334
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Faith
  • Red
  • Bracket for Outcome Variables - ANMATION
  • Robust standard errors for obvious autocorrelation.
  • Jared to changed equations
  • Jared to changed equations
  • Add in the DD2 and the DD2 equation – I just copy and pasted this from the next slide but can’t access the full equation
  • Add Woolridge slides with correct equation; Troy to add additional papers

Measuring the effects of alcohol-supply restrictions in indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia Measuring the effects of alcohol-supply restrictions in indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia Presentation Transcript

  • Measuring the effects of alcohol-supply restrictions in indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia
    Gabrielle Blumberg, Jonathon Flegg, Troy Gill, Sarah Hauser, Jared Kreutzer, Faith Rose, and Steven Paling
  • Background
    Indigenous communities in Australia do not enjoy the same standard of living, opportunities, and outcomes as the rest of the Australian population.
    Availability of alcohol and its widespread misuse has been argued to be one of the major causes of social malfunction in indigenous communities.
    The State of Queensland, NE Australia, has a large indigenous population (around 3.1%) compared with national average (2.5%)
    While subject to state and federal law, ‘discrete’ indigenous communities are self-governing and have a considerable amount of autonomy.
  • 3
    The Communities
    In blue: 19 remote and self-governing indigenous communities with high levels of alcohol abuse.
    Map Source: http://www.atsip.qld.gov.au/people/communities/community-map/
  • The Policy Reform
    The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities Amendment Act* was passed in Queensland Parliament in 2008. It amended the following legislation:
    Liquor Act 1992
    • Aboriginal Shire Councils can no longer hold a liquor license;
    • Alcohol may not be transported into or through restricted areas, except on designated highways;
    • Drinking in public places will be banned; and
    • Carriage limits will apply within private residences.
    Maximum penalties of A$37,500.
    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities Act 1984
    • Home-brew and equipment will be banned.
    Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000
    • Police can search without a warrant if they suspect a person or house of harboring alcohol.
    *ATSIS 2009b
  • Policy Goals
    July 2008: Alcohol-supply restrictions applied to 19 communities with high levels of alcohol-related violence and social harm.
    The Queensland Government’s policy goals are to:
    • Reduce domestic violence and other violent behaviour;
    • Increase overall health for everyone living in the community;
    • Create safer communities, especially for women and children; and
    • Provide opportunities to rebuild social norms and healthy families.
    *ATSIS 2009a
  • Key Performance Indicators
    The Queensland Governmentis monitoring the effects of the policies through changes in:
    • Hospital admissions for assault-related conditions;
    • Reported offences against a person;
    • Breaches of alcohol restrictions;
    • New substantiated notifications of harm;
    • New finalized child protection orders; and
    • School attendance.
    (ATSIS 2009a)
  • Research Question
    Research Question:
    What has been the effect of introducing alcohol-supply restrictions in ‘discrete’ indigenous communities on key indicators of social dysfunction?
    Policy Implication:
    Have the alcohol-supply measures been successful in contributing to the Queensland Government’s welfare goals for indigenous communities?
  • Major Difficulties with Identification
    Non-random treatment
    • Contingent on high-levels of alcohol abuse.
    Specifically disentangling the effects of alcohol-supply restrictions
    • From contemporaneous increases in government spending, including spending on police, education, alcohol support and legal services, across states and time.
    • Possible correlation between spending and treatment.
    Data constraints
    • Requires careful management of degrees of freedom and the size of robust standard errors.
  • Possible Identification Strategies
    Method
    Challenge
    Simple measurement of change in KPI
    Omitted Variable Bias.
    X
    outcome variables.
    -
    Simple OLS regression using post
    treatment
    Omitted Variable Bias.
    X
    -
    dummies and community
    fixed effects.
    X
    -
    Trend
    break analysis.
    Omitted Variable Bias.
    Simple OLS using post
    treatment dummies
    -
    No apparent IVs.
    and community
    fixed effects with instrumental
    -
    X
    variable estimation.
    Simple OLS regression using post
    treatment
    -
    dummies, community
    fixed effects and
    -
    Contingent on data availability.
    X
    controlling for various government spending
    per capita.
    in
    Difference
    -
    difference (DD) estimation with
    -
    Contingent on finding one valid

    matching control group.
    control group.
    Difference
    in
    difference
    in
    difference (DDD)
    -
    -
    -
    -
    Contingent on finding acceptable

    estimation with matching control group.
    control groups.
  • Methodology
    Assess available datasets;
    Find an acceptable control group using propensity matching scores;
    Difference-in-differences (DD) estimation;
    Difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) estimation; and
    Robustness checks using a placebo test and sequential removal of communities.
  • Data Available for Analysis
    For data on community specific policy interventions: http://www.atsip.qld.gov.au/ .
    All data are available monthly (education and hospital data) or quarterly from 1998 onwards.
  • Propensity Matching: Finding our Control Group
    Queensland has many other ‘discrete’ indigenous communities.
    However, by themselves they are a poor control.
    The Queensland Government did not view alcohol abuse to be sufficiently high enough within these communities to warrant treatment.
    Margolis et al (2008) failed to find a valid control group within Far Northern Queensland.
  • Propensity Matching: Finding our Control Group
    In the Northern Territory there are a large number of similar ‘discrete’ indigenous communities that have not received policy intervention.
    A valid control group would be communities that are matched with treated Queensland communities
  • Propensity Matching Score
    Communities would be matched according to:
    Key Performance Indicators
    • Hospital admissions for assault-related conditions;
    • Reported offences against a person;
    • New substantiated notifications of harm;
    • New finalized child protection orders; and
    • School attendance.
    Demographic and Other Observables
    • Population and population density;
    • Income per capita;
    • Average educational attainment;
    • Average alcohol consumption per capita;
    • Number of FTE police officers;
    • The existence of a licensed alcohol outlet within the community; and
    • Nearest alternative licensed source of alcohol.
  • Specification: Difference-in-Differences (DD) Estimation
    DD estimation performed for all communities (i) by quarter (t).
    Q is a dummy equal to 1 if community is in Queensland.
    P is a post-treatment dummy for all observations after the 2008 policy implementation.
    Y is a vector containing our 5 outcome variables using logs.
    Using robust standard errors for heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation by clustering.
    Regression is run over the period 1998 until the present.
    But DD estimation still leaves us with the unresolved problem of differences in state-based policy and spending.
    (1)
  • But there is a better way …
    “A more robust analysis … can be obtained by using both a different state and a control group within the treatment state” 
    - Imbens and Wooldridge, 2007
  • Specification: Triple Diff (DDD) Estimation
    Difference-in-Difference #1 – Queensland
    Where: Q = Queensland, NT = Northern Territory, D = Dysfunctional communities (treatment or matched), O = Other (non-treated and non-matched)
    This diff-in-diff allows for
    The permanent difference in outcomes between the two groups
    The change that would have occurred in all Queensland communities, in the absence of the treatment because of common factors (ex: state-based policies and spending)
    The resulting difference isolated represents the effect of:
    (i) the treatment, and
    (ii) the change that would have occurred in these “dysfunctional” communities anyway, such as mean reversion
    (2)
  • Specification: Triple Diff (DDD) Estimation
    Difference-in-Difference #2 – Northern Territory
    Where: Q = Queensland, NT = Northern Territory, D = Dysfunctional communities
    (treatment or matched), O = Other (non-treated and non-matched)
    Like the previous one, this diff-in-diff that allows for
    permanent differences in outcomes between the two groups, and
    a change (or trend) in the outcome variable that is common to both groups.
    Because there is no actual treatment for the matched communities, this diff-in-diff isolates the change in the matched groups due to being a dysfunctional community (such as mean reversion).
    (3)
  • Specification: Triple Diff (DDD) Estimation
    Difference-in-Difference-in-Differences
    Subtracting (2) from (1) clearly gives us the change in the outcome variable in the Queensland treatment group that is due to the treatment.
    Identifying assumption - Outcome variable in dysfunctional communities would have changed in the same way in Northern Territory and Queensland in the absence of treatment (and after stripping out other aggregate factors which likely vary across the two states, which is what the first two diff-in-diffs do).
    (4)
    DD1
    DD2
  • Specification: Triple Diff (DDD) Estimation
    In an approach analogous to Imbens and Wooldridge (2007) with the addition of matching control group:
    DDD estimation performed for all communities (i) by quarter (t).
    Q is a dummy equal to 1 if community is in Queensland.
    D is a dummy equal to 1 if it the community is matched.
    P is a post-dummy for all observations after the 2008 policy implementation.
    Y is a vector containing our 5 outcome variables, using logs.
    Using robust standard errors for heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation.
    (5)
  • Specification: Triple Diff (DDD) Estimation
    QLD, Matched, Post β0+ β1+ β2+ β3 + δ0 + δ1 + δ2 +δ3
    QLD, Matched, Pre β0+ β1+ β2+ β3
    QLD, Non-matched, Post β0+ β1+ δ0 + δ1
    QLD, Non-matched, Pre β0+ β1
    NT, Matched, Post β0+ β2 + δ0 + δ2
    NT, Matched, Pre β0+ β2
    NT, Non-matched, Post β0 + δ0
    NT, Non-matched, Pre β0
    Diff
    DD
    DDD
    Diff
    Diff
    DD
    Diff
  • Specification: Triple Diff (DDD) Estimation
    Dif-in-Dif: Queensland
    Dif-in-Dif: Northern Territory
    YQ,M,Pre
    YNT,M,Pre
    δ2
    δ2
    δ0 + δ2
    δ0 + δ1
    + δ2 + δ3
    δ2 + δ3
    δ2 + δ3
    YNT,M,Post
    YQ,N,Pre
    YQ,M,Post
    YNT,N,Pre
    δ0
    δ0
    δ0 + δ1
    δ0 + δ1
    YNT,N,Post
    YQ,N,Post
    2008 Policy Implementation
    2008 Policy Implementation
    Pre
    Post
    Pre
    Post
  • Robustness Checks
    1. Placebo Test
    • Re-estimate specification using different and arbitrary year as treatment, such as t – 3 or t – 6 .
    • The DDD estimator should be statistically significant at time t, and not significant at placebo timings.
    2. Sequential Removal of Communities
    • Sequentially exclude each community from the sample and re-estimate regression.
    • If results hold, suggests that we are capturing the general relationship between alcohol reform and outcome variables, rather than the influence of an outlier community.
  • Conclusion
    In 2008, alcohol restrictions and policies were put in place for 19 aboriginal communities in Queensland, Australia.
    Research Goal: To determine the impact of the policies on various alcohol abuse related outcome variables (hospital admissions, reported assaults, etc.).
    Approach: Triple differences specification.
    • Captures the change in the affected communities due to the treatment.
    • Isolates this change from other factors such as state-wide effects or “dysfunctional community” effects.
    Policy Implications:
    • QLD Government can evaluate the effectiveness of the policies and decide whether or not to continue, cancel, or expand the program.
    • Other state governments can use this information in forming their own policy approach to alcohol related problems in aboriginal communities.
  • Any Questions?
  • Bibliography
    • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services. 2009a. Alcohol reforms. [Online] (Updated 21 Jan 2009) Available at: http://www.atsip.qld.gov.au/government/programs-initiatives/alcohol-reforms/default.asp [Accessed 30 March 2010].
    • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services. 2009b. Fact Sheet 2: Legislative Changes. [Online] (Updated 21 Jan 2009) Available at: http://www.atsip.qld.gov.au/government/programs-initiatives/alcohol-reforms/documents/fact-sheet-02-legislative-changes.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2010]
    • Imbens, G. W. and J. M. Wooldridge. 2007. “What’s New in Econometrics?” NBER Lecture Notes Series. Available at: http://www.nber.org/WNE/lect_10_diffindiffs.pdf [Accessed 26 April 2010].
    • Margolis, S. A., V. A. Ypinazar, and R. Muller. 2008. “The Impact of Supply Reduction Through Alcohol Management Plans on Serious Injury in Remote Indigenous Communities in Remotre Australia: A Ten-Year Analysis Using Data from the Royal Flying Doctor Service”. Alcohol and Alcoholism 43(1): 104-10.
    • Spence, J. 2003. “Liquor Restrictions in Queensland Indigenous Communities”. Indigenous Law Bulletin 35. Available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2003/35.html [Accessed 30 March 2010].
  • Appendices
  • Appendix 1: Intervention Communities
  • Appendix 2: Proximity of Matching Communities
    NT
    QLD
    Map Source: http://www.ag.gov.au/