This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hollin, C. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evaluating offending behaviour programmes

Does only randomization glister?

University of Leicester, UK

Despite considerable investment there has been a marked reluctance by the Home Office to publish the evaluations of the various Pathfinder Programmes. Arguably, this reluctance stems from the `official' view that the commissioned researchers conducted the wrong type of research, specifically in not using randomized control trials (RCTs). The utility of RCTs is considered here with particular reference to the evaluation of the Offending Behaviour Pathfinder Programmes. It is argued that the Home Office `Reconviction Scale', favouring RCTs, is seriously flawed and is used to present a misleading view of the extant research. An overview of the wider literature shows that RCTs are not uniformly agreed to be the single design of choice in evaluating complex interventions such as offending behaviour programmes. The trend in disciplines such as the clinical sciences, with a history steeped in RCTs, is to utilize a range of research designs, both quantitative and qualitative, to evaluate complex interventions.

Key Words: evaluation • offending behaviour programmes • Pathfinder Programmes • randomized control trials • research design

Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol. 8, No. 1, 89-106 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1748895807085871


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?