Michael D. White

Bio: Michael D. White is an academic researcher from Arizona State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Officer & Poison control. The author has an hindex of 36, co-authored 96 publications receiving 3063 citations. Previous affiliations of Michael D. White include University of North Florida & John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Do Drug Courts Work? Getting inside the Drug Court Black Box

Abstract: This article argues that evaluation of drug courts will benefit not only from an organizing typology (Goldkamp, 1999a, 2000) that focuses research on the critical structural elements of the drug court model but also from an understanding of how drug courts are thought to deliver their impact. In developing a causal model of drug court impact, the analysis separates assessment of impact into two investigations: whether drug courts “work” and how they work. Data from the ongoing NIJ-supported evaluation of the Portland and Las Vegas drug courts are analyzed to answer the comparative question of whether there is an impact (and of what sort) and then to move consideration of the internal elements of the drug court (the black box of drug court treatment) through the development of successive theoretical models. The illustrative analyses guided by these models consider the relative contributions of instrumental drug court treatment functions and defendant risk attributes, which contribute importantly to drug co...

Officer Perceptions of Body-Worn Cameras Before and After Deployment: A Study of Three Departments

Abstract: Over the past few years, several events have highlighted the strained relationship between the police and residents in many communities. Police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) have been advocated ...

Evolution and Rationality Some Recent Game-Theoretic Results. Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects

Abstract: We investigate conditions sufficient for identification of average treatment effects using instrumental variables. First we show that the existence of valid instruments is not sufficient to identify any meaningful average treatment effect. We then establish that the combination of an instrument and a condition on the relation between the instrument and the participation status is sufficient for identification of a local average treatment effect for those who can be induced to change their participation status by changing the value of the instrument. Finally we derive the probability limit of the standard IV estimator under these conditions. It is seen to be a weighted average of local average treatment effects.

Economy and Society

Abstract: The four Visegrad states — Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia (until 1993 Czechoslovakia) and Hungary — form a compact area between Germany and Austria in the west and the states of the former USSR in the east. They are bounded by the Baltic in the north and the Danube river in the south. They are cut by the Sudeten and Carpathian mountain ranges, which divide Poland off from the other states. Poland is an extension of the North European plain and like the latter is drained by rivers that flow from south to north west — the Oder, the Vlatava and the Elbe, the Vistula and the Bug. The Danube is the great exception, flowing from its source eastward, turning through two 90-degree turns to end up in the Black Sea, forming the barrier and often the political frontier between central Europe and the Balkans. Hungary to the east of the Danube is also an open plain. The region is historically and culturally part of western Europe, but its eastern Marches now represents a vital strategic zone between Germany and the core of the European Union to the west and the Russian zone to the east.