Corrections_Today_September_October_2020_Vol.82_No.5

nEWS & vIEWS

In 2015, PA DOC, with free support from BetaGov, started using a rapid-cycle model for conducting RCT evalua- tions and experimentation around three agency goals: 1. Reducing in-prison violence; 2. Reducing the use

the fact that benefits are commonly unknown until the scientific evaluation of a program is complete. Experience demonstrates that most RCTS are ethical by design and in practice. In the end, there is no general ethical or logistical barrier prevent- ing RCTs in correctional environments. The field of correc- tions has lagged behind

of restrictive housing; and 3. Improving staff wellness. All staff at every level in the agency were invited to submit ideas for experimenting with new programs, practices and policies around these three goals. Since 2015, more than 200 trial ideas have been submitted, and at least three dozen RCT evaluations have been completed. Trials tested practices such as varying rates of inmate pat searches; providing visitors with notification of the consequences of bringing in contraband; use of colored bed sheets for inmate bed linens as an alternative to the traditional white bed sheets; aromatherapy; a swift and certain inmate discipline system in response to minor misconduct; an anxiety-reduction “chill plan” program for female inmates; use of virtual reality as an incentive for good behavior; the introduction of an intelligence officer staff posi- tion at the prison; unit dogs; suicide prevention training; and crisis inter- vention team training for working with mentally ill inmates.

istock/shutter_m

other criminal justice fields (such as polic- ing) in embracing RCT designs, but this can change. Cor- rectional departments should commit to fostering a learning organiza- tion, where the strongest possible evidence is generated for making decisions about what programs, poli- cies, and practices to use or not use. EndNotes 1 Weisburd, David, Cynthia M. Lum, and Anthony Petrosino, “Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 578 (2001): 50-70, doi: 10.1177/000271620157800104. 2 BetaGov, http://www.betagov.org/index.html. 3 George L. Kelling, Tony Pate, Duane Dieckman, and Charles E. Brown, The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report (Arlington, VA: Police Foundation, 1974), https://www.police- foundation.org/publication/the-kansas-citypreven- tive-patrol-experiment/. Kristofer Bret Bucklen, Ph.D. is the director of the Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. This article is adapted from “Conducting Randomized Controlled Studies in Correc- tional Settings” (June 2020), by Kristofer Bret Bucklen, Ph.D. NIJ.gov. National Institute of Justice.

PA DOC still uses the traditional RCT evaluation design for larger interventions that take more time to evaluate. Currently, the department is conducting several large-scale RCT evaluations, including an evaluation of providing Pell Grants for funding in-prison college courses for inmates, an evaluation of a program for teach- ing inmates financial management skills, and an evaluation of providing released inmates with overdose-re- versing naloxone kits before release. Conclusion If corrections professionals are interested in understanding the true causal impact of various policies and programs, the RCT evaluation design provides the strongest model for doing so. Correctional programs and policies should be evaluated locally rather than rely on evidence from other jurisdictions. Such evaluations do not need to be expensive or drawn out over long periods of time. Ethical objections to RCTs, typically on the grounds that control group members are denied treat- ment benefits, may fail to consider

22 — September/October 2020 Corrections Today