Corrections_Today_September_October_2020_Vol.82_No.5

nEWS & vIEWS

lead policymakers to commit too many resources to programs and policies that do not work or that have minimal impacts. A word of caution on evidence-based practices Another strength of random- ized controlled trials is setting a scientifically sound foundation for evidence-based practices (EBPs), a common term in correctional set- tings. It has become popular for policymakers to claim that they are implementing EBPs. In theory, this is a good thing. In practice, however, EBPs are only as good as the qual- ity of the evidence behind them. In some cases, the evidence base for EBPs is thin, exaggerated, or weak. For example, some so-called EBPs are indeed based on dozens of stud- ies documenting their effectiveness. However, a closer look reveals that most of those studies used weaker quasi-experimental designs with all of

the limitations previously mentioned, including exaggerating the true im- pact. A program or policy should not be declared an EBP only on the basis of the number of evaluations finding a positive impact. Rather, programs and policies should be judged based on both the number and the quality of the evaluations. RCTs establish quality to a degree that quasi-experimental designs cannot. Adopting programs or policies that have been labeled as EBPs as a result of research conducted else- where can also be a way to avoid evaluating the impact of a jurisdic- tion’s own programs or policies, as actually implemented in that jurisdic- tion. For instance, prison staff may decide to adopt a specific drug treat- ment program that has received the EBP label due to its positive findings from evaluations in other prisons or jurisdictions, and then claim that there is no need to evaluate it locally because it is already known to be an

EBP. The problem with this logic becomes evident when a program or policy labeled as an EBP does not actually work when it is transplanted to a context different from the one in which it was originally evaluated (e.g., in a different prison or among a different population), or when it is implemented differently. Conversely, programs or policies that are not labeled as EBPs may actually be effective in prisons or other specific environments, or when implemented in a certain way. It is crucially im- portant to evaluate programs locally rather than rely on evaluation results from other jurisdictions. Common objections to conducting RCTs in corrections It is not unusual for the proposed use of an RCT evaluation design in a correctional setting to encounter one or more common objections. The first is that it is unethical to assign par- ticipants to a program or policy on a random basis. Practitioners will often say they are concerned that if an RCT evaluation is conducted, someone in need of a program will be withheld from that program as a result of being randomly selected for the control group. For instance, an inmate soon to be released from prison may be withheld from a new reentry ser- vices program because he or she was randomly assigned to a control group. However, it is important to under- stand that this reasoning assumes that solid evidence already exists estab- lishing the program’s effectiveness in producing its intended impacts. The real impact of a program or policy is often not truly known.

istock/mrPliskin

20 — September/October 2020 Corrections Today