It is often assumed that naturalization has positive impacts for immigrants, but this has been difficult to test given the self-selection into naturalization. We will examine the effects of naturalization through an experimental study which randomly offered vouchers to low-income immigrants in New York that would pay their naturalization fee. We will use follow-up surveys and administrative data linkages to measure the effect that American citizenship has had on their financial outcomes.
External Link(s)
Citation
Duncan, Lawrence et al. 2020. "The Effect of Citizenship on Financial Outcomes." AEA RCT Registry. November 20. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.6790-1.1.
credit score, income, access to credit, financial distress
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
NaturalizeNY was a public-private program operating in New York State that promoted naturalization among low-income legal permanent residents who are eligible to naturalize, but may face financial barriers preventing them from doing so. The NaturalizeNY lottery was run in 2016, 2017, and 2018. In each year, immigrants registered for the program and during the registration process their eligibility for the voucher lottery was determined. Registrants who met the program requirements were deemed eligible for the voucher lottery. After the registration period closed, these registrants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. If a participant was assigned to the treatment group, he or she received a voucher that paid the full cost of applying for citizenship ($680 in 2016, $405 or $725 in 2017 and 2018 depending on the immigrant's household (HH) income). The voucher was processed by a specific Office for New Americans Opportunity Centers (OC) in New York. The fee voucher was directly paid to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by the OC and could not be used for any other purpose than to pay for the naturalization application. Participants assigned to the control group did not receive a fee voucher.
Each year, the voucher randomization was conducted within blocks. In particular, eligible registrants were assigned to one randomization block based on their geocoded street address provided during the registration and the type of voucher that was needed (whether a person would likely need a full or partial voucher). The geographic blocking was conducted to minimize the distance that lottery winners would have to travel to get their vouchers processed at an OC. A lottery was conducted in all blocks where the demand for the vouchers exceeded the number of available vouchers. The blocks that met this criterion were New York City and Long Island. Only registrants from these blocks are included in the experiment.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Sample size: planned number of clusters
2400 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
7200 individual-years
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1200 individuals treatment, 1200 individuals control
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)