Estimates of LATEs of neighborhood quality are reported for the subpopulation in $S1,2M$ in table 3. We interpret the large standard errors as a result of the small sample size used in estimation and note that the mechanical relationship generating bias in linear-in-means models does not hold in our model (see note 8). Since the estimates pertain to the select subgroup induced to move to higher-quality neighborhoods through MTO, they are not generalizable.
 Outcome $▵1,2LATEZM$ Control Mean in $S1,2M$ Labor Market In labor force (%) 25.8 53.2 (18.3) Employed (%) 31.2 41.7 (20.1) Household income ($) 5,616 13,506 (3,914) Earnings ($) 1,970 7,642 (4,066) Welfare benefits Received TANF (%) −40.0 39.9 (19.2) Health BMI (raw) −3.1 30.9 (2.8)
 Outcome $▵1,2LATEZM$ Control Mean in $S1,2M$ Labor Market In labor force (%) 25.8 53.2 (18.3) Employed (%) 31.2 41.7 (20.1) Household income ($) 5,616 13,506 (3,914) Earnings ($) 1,970 7,642 (4,066) Welfare benefits Received TANF (%) −40.0 39.9 (19.2) Health BMI (raw) −3.1 30.9 (2.8)
$▵1,2LATEZM$ estimates pertain to individuals with observed and unobserved choice model components in $S1,2M≡{(μ(xi),UD(i))|μ(xi)∈[-0.6,0.4],uD(i)∈[0.43+0.30μ(xi),0.68+0.15μ(xi)]}$. Control means are also computed for the subsample in this region and outside this region (both conditional on $D(i)=1$). Standard errors are computed using 200 bootstrap replications.