hu-kelley
Uploaded by
11 SLIDES
231 VIEWS
110LIKES

Implementing a Randomised Controlled Trial for the evaluation of Probation supervision

DESCRIPTION

This presentation by Dominic Pearson details the implementation and evaluation of the Citizenship programme within the County Durham Probation Area through a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). It addresses the program's objectives, such as reducing recidivism and enhancing community engagement while presenting the methodological challenges faced, including ethical concerns and practical constraints in three different areas. The results of the phased deployment illustrate varied take-up rates and assess the effectiveness versus the costs, providing valuable insights for probation practice.

1 / 11

Download Presentation

Implementing a Randomised Controlled Trial for the evaluation of Probation supervision

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementing a Randomised Controlled Trial for the evaluation of Probation supervision Presenter: Dominic Pearson Collaborators: David Torgerson Cynthia McDougall Roger Bowles

  2. Overview of Presentation • Citizenship programme • Commissioned evaluation • Local implementation constraints • Solutions adopted • Results of deployment • Conclusions • Methodological questions

  3. Citizenship programme • Designed in County Durham Probation Area • Operational staff and managers, supported by a consultant (Professor Clive Hollin) • Structured one-to-one work • A planned response to assessed crime-related needs using specific modules (e.g. alcohol) • Aims to raise awareness, motivate to change and link in with external resources

  4. Commissioned evaluation • Commissioner required a regional evaluation • 3 Areas, different profiles • Aims • Identify whether the programme reduces reconvictions • Identify whether the programme promotes engagement with relevant community provision • Identify the benefit-costs relationship

  5. General barriers to an RCT in the National Probation Service • Ethical resistance to random allocation • Judiciary • Probation managers • Probation practitioners • Programme management concerns • Difficult for practitioners to manage cases in two different ways • Related quality control issues • Staff training: a randomised phased allocation of the programme = more training events

  6. Specific local barriers to an RCT • Area A - had already implemented at the time of commissioning • Area B – had resource issues linked to workload climate • Area C – had performance management issues in some sectors

  7. Area A (had already implemented) Retrospective design Area B (had resource/workload issues) Opted for a single Area-wide launch with senior management support (‘big bang’) – retrospective design Area C (had offices with performance issues) Opted for a ‘stepped wedge’ design with offices randomly allocated in sequence to begin programme deployment Office 1→ April 2007 Office 2 → June 2007 Office 3 → August 2007 Solutions adopted • Office 4→ October 2007 • Office 5 → December 2007 • Office 6 → February 2008

  8. Area A 75% (3072 / 4078) Area B 27% (2499 / 9749) Office 4: 40% (14 / 35) Office 5: 31% (21 / 67) Office 6: 65% (11 / 17) Results of deployment- take up rates • Area C • 44% (188 / 426) • Office 1: 47% (26 / 65) • Office 2: 51% (50 / 98) • Office 3: 46% (66 / 144)

  9. Conclusions on Implementation • Area A was a different case • Implemented in a previous period and over a longer time • Area B vs. Area C • Phased deployment produced better results at less cost • Area B needed to re-launch (‘big bang’ #2) • Progress in Area C could be monitored and managed • Differential take up can be adjusted for in the analyses • Lesson in the importance of discussing evaluation at the time of implementation

  10. Methodological questions • Overall / Regional evaluation • 3 stages • Different methodologies and Area profiles • Citizenship programme is the constant • Positive results from the first stage evaluation • Results from the (deficient) retrospective designs will be illuminated by the RCT • How will the effects associated with the different methodologies compare?

  11. Thank you for listening • We welcome your comments and thought-provoking questions!

More Related