Randomized Experiments in Criminal Justice Policy: Prospects and Problems

By David Weisburd. 2000

94 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment (2017, background): “Though causal inference through randomized experiments has been touted as the gold standard for evaluating criminogenic interventions, their practical application is much more sparse [31, 71].”
Strategies for Improving Precision in Group-Randomized Experiments (2007, unknown): “…2005; Sikkema, 2005), neighborhoods or whole communities (Hannan, Murray, Jacobs, & McGovern, 1994; Sherman & Weisburd, 1995; Teruel & Davis, 2000; Weisburd, 2000, 2005), and physician practices (Donner & Klar, 2000; Grimshaw, Eccles, Campbell, & Elbourne, 2005; Leviton & Horbar, 2005; Murray,…”
Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods? (2005, background): “The most common arguments against the use of randomized experiments often involve practical or ethical concerns (for a review of some of these arguments, see Boruch 1976; Clarke and Cornish 1972; Cook 2003; Farrington 1983; Shepherd 2003; Stufflebeam 2001; Weisburd 2000).”
Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice (2010, background): “difficulties of meeting the assumptions of non-experimental studies, many evaluation statisticians have taken the position that only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide valid conclusions regarding the impacts of treatments and programs (Boruch et al. 2000; Campbell and Boruch 1975; Cook ”