|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Implementing Randomized Experiments
Lessons from BJA's Intensive Supervision Project
Joan Petersilia
The RAND Corporation
Eleven jurisdictions across the country are participating in the Intensive Supervision Demon stration Projectfunded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The demonstration is designed to assess the effects — and costs — of sentencing convicted felons to community-based programs. One of the unique aspects of the project is that it involves random assignment of offenders to intensive probation/parole supervision or control program conditions. The demonstration will run until 1990, but it has already provided instructive insights into the issues and problems involved in managing large randomized field experiments in criminal justice. The purpose of this article is to describe the programs and sites participating in the BJA Demonstration Project. The details of the RAND evaluation are then outlined, along with the data collection methods and random assignment procedures. The remaining sections describe and discuss the author's experiences, both positive and negative, in designing and evaluating the demonstration project. The author's hope is that the lessons learned from this experiment will prove instructive and help pave the way toward more refined randomized experiments in the future.
Evaluation Review, Vol. 13, No. 5,
435-458 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8901300501
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
D. Weisburd
Hot Spots Policing Experiments and Criminal Justice Research: Lessons from the Field
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
May 1, 2005;
599(1):
220 - 245.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Weisburd
Ethical Practice and Evaluation of Interventions in Crime and Justice: The Moral Imperative for Randomized Trials
Eval Rev,
June 1, 2003;
27(3):
336 - 354.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Feder, A. Jolin, and W. Feyerherm
Lessons from Two Randomized Experiments in Criminal Justice Settings
Crime Delinquency,
July 1, 2000;
46(3):
380 - 400.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Weisburd
Randomized Experiments in Criminal Justice Policy: Prospects and Problems
Crime Delinquency,
April 1, 2000;
46(2):
181 - 193.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. D. PETERSEN and D. J. PALUMBO
The Social Construction of Intermediate Punishments
The Prison Journal,
March 1, 1997;
77(1):
77 - 91.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. R. GARTIN
Dealing with Design Failures in Randomized Field Experiments: Analytic Issues Regarding the Evaluation of Treatment Effects
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
November 1, 1995;
32(4):
425 - 445.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Maxfield and T. L. Baumer
Pretrial Home Detention With Electronic Monitoring: A Nonexperimental Salvage Evaluation
Eval Rev,
June 1, 1992;
16(3):
315 - 332.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. TURNER and J. PETERSILIA
Focusing on High-Risk Parolees: An Experiment to Reduce Commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
February 1, 1992;
29(1):
34 - 61.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. I. Minor, D. J. Hartmann, and S. F. Davis
Preserving Internal Validity in Correctional Evaluation Research: The Biased Assignment Design as an Alternative to Randomized Design
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,
December 1, 1990;
6(4):
216 - 225.
[Abstract]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Byrne
The Future of Intensive Probation Supervision and the New Intermediate Sanctions
Crime Delinquency,
January 1, 1990;
36(1):
6 - 41.
|
|
|
|
|
