Corrections_Today_September_October_2020_Vol.82_No.5

NIJ Update

The reason that an RCT evalu- ation is proposed in the first place is that there is uncertainty as to the impact of the program or policy in question. If it was already known with a high degree of certainty that a program or policy worked, then it would be easier to argue that it is unethical to randomly hold back people from receiving the program or policy. There have been instances of well-intentioned programs, how- ever, that turned out to make people worse off. In such a case, random assignment of individuals to a con- trol group would have actually made them better off. If the impact of a program is not known and there are limited program resources, then the fairest way to assign someone to the program is through random assign- ment (like a lottery system). A second common objection to an RCT evaluation is that conduct- ing RCTs is expensive and slow. A traditional RCT could cost thousands of dollars to conduct and take several years to complete. Fortunately, RCT evaluations do not need to follow this traditional model — they do not need to be expensive and slow. Alternative RCT evaluation models are emerging that involve rapid-cycle testing and the use of existing staff to minimize cost and time. One example of the new model comes from an organization at New York University named BetaGov, whose mission is to help policymakers and government agencies identify problems, develop innovative solutions, and test them rapidly using rigorous research meth- ods. 2 BetaGov has helped government organizations in criminal justice and other public sector areas conduct dozens of rapid RCT evaluations. The

typical BetaGov RCT evaluation is concluded in three to six months. The model is drawn from the private sec- tor, which has long relied on simple, pragmatic RCTs to improve efficiency and performance. BetaGov has helped government organizations in criminal justice and other public sector areas conduct dozens RCT evaluations in policing The field of corrections lags behind the field of policing in em- bracing the use of RCTs to evaluate programs, practices, and policies. RCTs have generally caught on earlier and with more traction in policing than in corrections. This section provides an example of one bold policing experiment that should serve to stimulate correctional agencies to further embrace RCT evaluation designs. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment 3 was an RCT designed to test the assumption that the pres- ence of police officers in marked cars reduced the likelihood of a crime being committed. The experiment of rapid RCT evaluations.

took different police beats in Kansas City and randomized them to varying patrol routines: (1) no patrol routine but only reactive calls from residents, (2) a normal level of patrol, or (3) two to three times the normal level of patrol. The study found that the rate at which crime was reported did not vary across the different patrolling routines, nor did citizen perceptions of crime vary across the routines. This groundbreaking study in part moved modern American policing away from random preventive patrolling to more proactive and targeted patrolling. Examples like this can motivate the field of corrections to catch up with the policing field in embracing RCTs, a practice that can move cor- rections forward significantly. An example from one state prison jurisdiction: Pennsylvania Although the corrections field in general has lagged behind in adopt- ing RCTs, there are exceptions. Over the past 15 years, the Penn- sylvania Department of Corrections (PA DOC) has conducted several program evaluations using an RCT design, including evaluations of a reentry program, a life skills pro- gram, a therapeutic community program, a medication-assisted treatment program for inmates with an opioid use problem, and a post-release community reloca- tion program. Until 2015, PA DOC followed a traditional model for conducting RCT studies. While this model worked well for the depart- ment in certain cases, it also suffered limitations noted above, including cost and duration concerns.

→

Corrections Today September/October 2020 — 21