Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials With Offenders in an Administrative Setting

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Evaluation research conducted in agencies that sanction law violators is often challenging and due process may preclude evaluators from using experimental methods in traditional criminal justice agencies such as police, courts, and corrections. However, administrative agencies often deal with the same population but are not bound by due process rules. This paper examines three randomized controlled trials conducted in an administrative agency and outlines the benefits of working in a nontraditional criminal justice agency over traditional criminal justice settings. Also addressed are barriers encountered and methods for overcoming set-backs. The findings demonstrate that the challenges of conducting randomized controlled trials in administrative agencies are similar to those experienced in police agencies, courts, and corrections. However, administrative contexts also have advantages over traditional criminal justice agencies and criminal justice researchers and scholars should broaden their focus and examine administrative agencies as feasible environments for conducting rigorous research on offending populations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)164-178
Number of pages15
JournalAmerican Journal of Evaluation
Volume36
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 4 2015

Fingerprint

Criminal Law
offender
Randomized Controlled Trials
justice
Civil Rights
Police
police
evaluation research
sanction
Population
Research Personnel
Justice
Randomized controlled trial
Law
Research

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Business and International Management
  • Social Psychology
  • Health(social science)
  • Education
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Strategy and Management

Cite this

@article{1eccb9c03f75465ebb05b39b6e553ac6,
title = "Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials With Offenders in an Administrative Setting",
abstract = "Evaluation research conducted in agencies that sanction law violators is often challenging and due process may preclude evaluators from using experimental methods in traditional criminal justice agencies such as police, courts, and corrections. However, administrative agencies often deal with the same population but are not bound by due process rules. This paper examines three randomized controlled trials conducted in an administrative agency and outlines the benefits of working in a nontraditional criminal justice agency over traditional criminal justice settings. Also addressed are barriers encountered and methods for overcoming set-backs. The findings demonstrate that the challenges of conducting randomized controlled trials in administrative agencies are similar to those experienced in police agencies, courts, and corrections. However, administrative contexts also have advantages over traditional criminal justice agencies and criminal justice researchers and scholars should broaden their focus and examine administrative agencies as feasible environments for conducting rigorous research on offending populations.",
author = "Ahlin, {Eileen M.}",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1177/1098214014542099",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "164--178",
journal = "American Journal of Evaluation",
issn = "1098-2140",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials With Offenders in an Administrative Setting. / Ahlin, Eileen M.

In: American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 36, No. 2, 04.06.2015, p. 164-178.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials With Offenders in an Administrative Setting

AU - Ahlin, Eileen M.

PY - 2015/6/4

Y1 - 2015/6/4

N2 - Evaluation research conducted in agencies that sanction law violators is often challenging and due process may preclude evaluators from using experimental methods in traditional criminal justice agencies such as police, courts, and corrections. However, administrative agencies often deal with the same population but are not bound by due process rules. This paper examines three randomized controlled trials conducted in an administrative agency and outlines the benefits of working in a nontraditional criminal justice agency over traditional criminal justice settings. Also addressed are barriers encountered and methods for overcoming set-backs. The findings demonstrate that the challenges of conducting randomized controlled trials in administrative agencies are similar to those experienced in police agencies, courts, and corrections. However, administrative contexts also have advantages over traditional criminal justice agencies and criminal justice researchers and scholars should broaden their focus and examine administrative agencies as feasible environments for conducting rigorous research on offending populations.

AB - Evaluation research conducted in agencies that sanction law violators is often challenging and due process may preclude evaluators from using experimental methods in traditional criminal justice agencies such as police, courts, and corrections. However, administrative agencies often deal with the same population but are not bound by due process rules. This paper examines three randomized controlled trials conducted in an administrative agency and outlines the benefits of working in a nontraditional criminal justice agency over traditional criminal justice settings. Also addressed are barriers encountered and methods for overcoming set-backs. The findings demonstrate that the challenges of conducting randomized controlled trials in administrative agencies are similar to those experienced in police agencies, courts, and corrections. However, administrative contexts also have advantages over traditional criminal justice agencies and criminal justice researchers and scholars should broaden their focus and examine administrative agencies as feasible environments for conducting rigorous research on offending populations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930393704&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930393704&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1098214014542099

DO - 10.1177/1098214014542099

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84930393704

VL - 36

SP - 164

EP - 178

JO - American Journal of Evaluation

JF - American Journal of Evaluation

SN - 1098-2140

IS - 2

ER -