IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v38y2014i4p295-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Important Methodological Issues in Evaluating Community-Based Interventions

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Parker
  • Jack Bush
  • Daryl Harris

Abstract

Background: Evaluation of offending behavior programs has become reasonably controversial in recent times as some researchers have advocated that evaluations should use a treatment as received (TR) model, which ignores dropouts and refusers, despite criticism that this removes the ability to make inferences about the effectiveness of the program. Some of those arguing in favor of a TR methodology suggest that the large number of noncompleters in community-based evaluations will make it impossible to detect treatment effects. A further issue with evaluation of community-based offender behavior programs is the fact that many programs are reasonably long. Evaluation methodologies inherited from custodial programs count recidivism from day one—which is before any benefits from the program are hypothesized to occur. Objectives: This article explores these issues to find solutions that are scientifically robust but also sensitive to actual program effects. Conclusion: The current authors argue that evaluations should use an intention-to-treat (ITT) model which includes noncompleters and that, using this methodology, an effective program, delivered with high integrity, should be able to demonstrate an impact on offending. However, the time period selected for evaluation should relate to the hypothesized effects of the program, not just begin from the start of supervision or commencement of the program. In doing so, the evaluators should ensure that both treatment and control groups are treated equally.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Parker & Jack Bush & Daryl Harris, 2014. "Important Methodological Issues in Evaluating Community-Based Interventions," Evaluation Review, , vol. 38(4), pages 295-308, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:38:y:2014:i:4:p:295-308
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X14542610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X14542610
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X14542610?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:38:y:2014:i:4:p:295-308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.