IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v628y2010i1p11-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parable of Two Agencies, One of Which Randomizes

Author

Listed:
  • Dominic Pearson

    (National Probation Service in County Durham)

  • David Torgerson

    (York Trials Unit)

  • Cynthia McDougall

    (University of York)

  • Roger Bowles

    (University of York, UK)

Abstract

This article examines the design of evaluations in settings where there is a choice as to how an intervention is to be introduced and evaluated. It uses data from a supervision program for offenders on probation in the UK (Bruce and Hollin forthcoming) that had been indicated by a pilot evaluation in one probation area to merit wider-scale implementation and evaluation. For the remaining two probation areas in the region, a randomized controlled allocation of participants to conditions was recommended. One of the areas adopted a stepped wedge design, in which probation offices were randomly allocated sequentially to the program. The second area opted to launch the program across the whole area simultaneously, with a retrospective sample as control group. The article compares the results of implementation in each probation area and seeks to draw wider inferences about the management of program implementation and the randomized controlled designs appropriate for similar field studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominic Pearson & David Torgerson & Cynthia McDougall & Roger Bowles, 2010. "Parable of Two Agencies, One of Which Randomizes," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 11-29, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:628:y:2010:i:1:p:11-29
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716209351500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716209351500
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716209351500?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Weisburd & Cynthia M. Lum & Anthony Petrosino, 2001. "Does Research Design Affect Study Outcomes in Criminal Justice?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 578(1), pages 50-70, November.
    2. David P. Farrington, 2003. "British Randomized Experiments on Crime and Justice," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 150-167, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David P. Farrington, 2003. "Methodological Quality Standards for Evaluation Research," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 587(1), pages 49-68, May.
    2. Anthony Petrosino, 2003. "Estimates of Randomized Controlled Trials Across Six Areas of Childhood Intervention: A Bibliometric Analysis," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 190-202, September.
    3. Mark W. Lipsey, 2003. "Those Confounded Moderators in Meta-Analysis: Good, Bad, and Ugly," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 587(1), pages 69-81, May.
    4. Lawrence W. Sherman, 2005. "The Use and Usefulness of Criminology, 1751-2005: Enlightened Justice and Its Failures," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 600(1), pages 115-135, July.
    5. David Weisburd & Cynthia M. Lum & Sue-Ming Yang, 2003. "When can we Conclude that Treatments or Programs “Don’t Work†?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 587(1), pages 31-48, May.
    6. Kevin Petersen & Robert C. Davis & David Weisburd & Bruce Taylor, 2022. "Effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family abuse: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), March.
    7. Brandon C. Welsh & David P. Farrington, 2003. "Effects of Closed-Circuit Television on Crime," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 587(1), pages 110-135, May.
    8. Iain Chalmers, 2003. "Trying to do more Good than Harm in Policy and Practice: The Role of Rigorous, Transparent, Up-to-Date Evaluations," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 22-40, September.
    9. Lawrence W. Sherman & Heather Strang, 2004. "Experimental Ethnography: The Marriage of Qualitative and Quantitative Research," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 595(1), pages 204-222, September.
    10. Lawrence W. Sherman, 2003. "Misleading Evidence and Evidence-Led Policy: Making Social Science more Experimental," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 6-19, September.
    11. Friedrich Lösel & Andreas Beelmann, 2003. "Effects of Child Skills Training in Preventing Antisocial Behavior: A Systematic Review of Randomized Evaluations," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 587(1), pages 84-109, May.
    12. Kevin Petersen & David Weisburd & Sydney Fay & Elizabeth Eggins & Lorraine Mazerolle, 2023. "Police stops to reduce crime: A systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), March.
    13. Lawrence W. Sherman, 2003. "Experimental Evidence and Governmental Administration," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 226-233, September.
    14. David Weisburd & John E. Eck, 2004. "What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 593(1), pages 42-65, May.

    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:anname:v:628:y:2010:i:1:p:11-29. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.