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.
Babcock, J.C., C.E. Green and C. Robie (2004) `Does Batterers' Treatment Work? A Meta-Analytic Review of Domestic Violence Treatment', Clinical Psychology Review23(8): 1023—53.
2.
Boruch, R. (2007) `The Null Hypothesis Is Not Called That for Nothing: Statistical Tests in Randomized Trials', Journal of Experimental Criminology3(1): 1—20.
3.
Chitty, C. (2005) `The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: Conclusions and the Way Forward', in G. Harper and C. Chitty (eds) The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: A Review of `What Works', 2nd edn, pp. 75—82. Home Office Research Study 291. London: Home Office.
4.
Clancy, A., L. Hudson, M. Maguire, R. Peake, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J. Kynch (2006) Getting Out and Staying Out. Bristol: Policy Press.
5.
Clark, D.M. (2004) `Developing New Treatments: On the Interplay between Theories, Experimental Science and Clinical Innovation', Behaviour Research and Therapy42(9): 1089—104.
6.
Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell (1979) Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
7.
Debidin, M. and J. Lovbakke (2005) `Offending Behaviour Programmes in Prison and Probation ', in G. Harper and C. Chitty (eds) The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: A Review of `What Works', 2nd edn, pp. 31—55. Home Office Research Study 291. London: Home Office .
8.
Des Jarlais, D.C., C. Lyles and N. Crepaz (2004) `Improving the Quality of Nonrandomized Evaluations of Behavioural and Public Health Interventions: The TREND Statement', American Journal of Public Health94(3): 361—6.
9.
Elliott-Marshall, R., M. Ramsey and D. Stewart (2005) `Alternative Approaches to Integrating Offenders into the Community', in G. Harper and C. Chitty (eds) The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: A Review of `What Works', pp. 57—74. Home Office Research Study 291, 2nd edn. London: Home Office.
10.
Everitt, B.S. and S. Wessely (2004) Clinical Trials in Psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
Farrington, D.P. and D. Jolliffe (2002) A Feasibility Study into Using a Randomised Controlled Trial to Evaluate Treatment Pilots at HMP Whitemoor. Home Office Online Report 14/02. London: Home Office.
12.
Farrington, D.P. and B.C. Welsh (2005) `Randomized Experiments in Criminology: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?', Journal of Experimental Criminology1(1): 9—38.
13.
Farrington, D.P., D.C. Gottfredson, L.W. Sherman and B.C. Welsh (2002) `The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale', in L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. Welsh and D.L. MacKenzie (eds) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, pp. 3—21. London: Routledge.
14.
Friendship, C., R. Street, J. Cann and G.Harper (2005) `Introduction: The Policy Context and Assessing the Evidence', in G. Harper and C. Chitty (eds) The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: A Review of `What Works', 2nd edn, pp. 1—16. Home Office Research Study 291. London: Home Office .
15.
Friendship, C., L. Blud, M. Erikson, L. Travers and D.M. Thornton (2003) `Cognitive-Behavioural Treatment for Imprisoned Offenders: An Evaluation of HM Prison Service's Cognitive Skills Programmes ', Legal and Criminological Psychology8(1): 103—14.
16.
Gilbody, S. and P. Whitty (2002) `Improving the Delivery and Organisation of Mental Health Services: Beyond the Conventional Randomised Controlled Trial', British Journal of Psychiatry180: 13—18.
17.
Goetghebeur, E. and T. Loeys (2002) `Beyond Intention to Treat', Epidemiologic Reviews24(1): 85—90.
18.
Gondolf, E.W. (2001) `Limitations of Experimental Evaluation of Batterer Programs', Trauma, Violence, and Abuse2(1): 79—88.
19.
Gondolf, E.W. (2004) `Evaluating Batterer Counselling Programs: A Difficult Task Showing Some Effects and Implications', Aggression and Violent Behaviour9(6): 605—31.
20.
Harper, G. and C. Chitty (eds) (2005) The Impact of Corrections on Reoffending: A Review of `What Works', 2nd edn. Home Office Research Study 291. London: Home Office.
21.
Hartling, L., F.A. McAlister, B.H. Rowe, J. Ezekowitz, C. Friesen and T.P. Klassen (2005) `Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Therapeutic Devices and Procedures', Annals of Internal Medicine142(12 Pt 2): 1100—11.
22.
Hedderman, C. (2004) `Testing Times: How the Policy and Practice Environment Shaped the Creation of “What Works” Evidence-Base', Vista8(3): 182—8.
23.
Heinsman, D.T. and W.R. Shadish (1996) `Assignment Methods in Experimentation: When Do Nonrandomized Experiments Approximate Answers from Randomized Experiments? ', Psychological Methods1(2): 154—69.
24.
Hollin, C. (2005) `Offending Behaviour Programmes II: Programme Outcome ', paper presented at the XVth European Conference for Psychology and Law, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius , Lithuania, June.
25.
Hollin, C., J. McGuire, E. Palmer, C. Bilby, R. Hatcher and A. Holmes (2002) Introducing Pathfinder Programmes into the Probation Service. Home Office Findings 177. London: Home Office.
26.
Hollin, C.R., E.J. Palmer, J. McGuire, J. Hounsome, R. Hatcher, C. Bilby and C. Clark (2004) Pathfinder Programmes in the Probation Service: A Retrospective Analysis. Home Office Online Report 66/04. London: Home Office.
27.
Hollis, S. and F. Campbell (1999) `What Is Meant by Intention to Treat Analysis? Survey of Published Randomised Control Trials', British Medical Journal319(7211): 670—4.
28.
Hope, T. (2004) `Pretend It Works: Evidence and Governance in the Evaluation of the Reducing Burglary Initiative', Criminal Justice4(3): 287—308.
29.
Hotopf, M. (2002) `The Pragmatic Randomised Control Trial', Advances in Psychiatric Treatment8(5): 326—33.
30.
Jadad, A.R., R.A. Moore, D. Carroll, C. Jenkinson, J.M. Reynolds, D.J. Gavaghon and D.M. McQuay (2001) `Assessing the Quality of Reports of Randomized Clinical Trials: Is Blinding Necessary?', Controlled Clinical Trials17(1): 1—12.
31.
Juni, P., D.G. Altman and M. Egger (2001) `Assessing the Quality of Controlled Clinical Trials ', British Medical Journal323(7303): 42—6.
32.
Levant, R.F. (2004) `The Empirically Validated Treatments Movement: A Practitioner/Educator Perspective', Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice11(2): 219—26.
33.
Lewis, S.C. and C.P. Warlow (2004) `How to Spot Bias and Other Potential Problems in Randomised Controlled Trials', Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry75(2): 181—7.
34.
Lewis, S., M. Maguire, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J. Vennard (2007) `What Works in Resettlement? Findings from Seven Pathfinders in England and Wales', Criminology &Criminal Justice7(1): 33—53.
35.
Lewis, S., J. Vennard, M. Maguire, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone, S. Raybould and A. Rix (2003) The Resettlement of Short-Term Prisoners: An Evaluation of Seven Pathfinder Programmes. RDS Occasional paper 83. London: Home Office.
36.
Lipsey, M.W. (1992) `Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability of Effects', in T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H. Hartmann , L.V. Hedges, R.J. Light, T.A. Louis and F. Mosteller (eds) Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook, pp. 83—127. New York : Russell Sage Foundation.
37.
Lipsey, M.W., G.L. Chapman and N.A. Landenberger (2001) `Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science578(1): 144—57.
38.
Lösel, F. and M. Schmucker (2005) `The Effectiveness of Treatment for Sexual Offenders: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis', Journal of Experimental Criminology1(1): 117—46.
39.
Lum, C. and S.-M. Yang (2005) `Why Do Evaluation Researchers in Crime and Justice Choose Non-Experimental Methods?', Journal of ExperimentalCriminology1(2): 191—213.
40.
McGuire, J. (ed.) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
41.
McGuire, J. (ed.) (2002) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
42.
Maguire, M. and P. Raynor (2006) `How the Resettlement of Prisoners Promotes Desistance from Crime: Or Does It?', Criminology &Criminal Justice6(1): 19—38.
43.
Munro, A.J. (2005) `The Conventional Wisdom and Activities of the Middle Range', British Journal ofRadiology78(929): 381—3.
44.
Norris, S.L. and D. Atkins (2005) `Challenges in Using Nonrandomized Studies in Systematic Reviews of Treatment Interventions', Annals of Internal Medicine142(12 Pt 2): 1112—19.
45.
Nuttall, C. (2003) `The Home Office and Random Allocation Experiments ', Evaluation Review27(3): 267—89.
46.
Palmer, E.J. (2005) `Offending Behaviour Programmes I: Issues in Evaluation ', paper presented at the XVth European Conference for Psychology and Law, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius , Lithuania, June.
47.
Palmer, E.J., J. McGuire, J.C. Hounsome, R.M. Hatcher, C.A. Bilby and C.R. Hollin (2007) `Offending Behaviour Programmes in the Community: The Effects on Reconviction of Three Programmes with Adult Male Offenders ', Legal and Criminological Psychology12(2): 251—64.
48.
Raynor, P. (2004) `The Probation Service “Pathfinders”: Finding the Path and Losing the Way?', Criminal Justice4(3): 309—25.
49.
Reed, D., E.G. Price, D.M. Windish, S.M. Wright, A. Gozu, E.B. Hsu, M.C. Beach, D. Kern and E.B. Bass (2005) `Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Educational Intervention Studies', Annals of Internal Medicine142(12 Pt 2): 1080—9.
50.
Seligman, M.E.P. and R.F. Levant (1998) `Managed Care Policies Rely on Inadequate Science ', Professional Psychology: Research and Practice29(3): 211—12.
51.
Shapiro, D.A., H. Harper, M. Startup, S. Reynolds, D. Bird and A. Suokas (1994) `The High Water Mark of the Drug Metaphor: A Meta-Analytic Critique of Process-Outcome Research', in R.L. Russell (ed.) Reassessing Psychotherapy Research, pp. 1—35. New York: Guilford Press.
52.
Sherman, L.W. (2003) `Misleading Evidence and Evidence-Led Policy: Making Social Science More Experimental', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science589: 6—19.
53.
Sherman, L.W., D.C. Gottfredson, D.L. MacKenzie, J.E. Eck, P. Reuter and S.D. Bushway (1997) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
54.
Slade, M. and S. Priebe (2001) `Are Randomised Controlled Trials the Only Gold That Glitters?', British Journal of Psychiatry179: 286—7.
55.
Stewart-Ong, G., L. Harsent, C. Roberts, R. Burnett and Z. Al-Attar (2004) What Works: Think First Prospective Research Study: Effectiveness and Reducing Attrition. London: Home Office.
56.
Victora, C.G., J.-P. Habicht and J. Bryce (2004) `Evidence-Based Public Health: Moving beyond Randomized Trials', American Journal of Public Health94(3): 400—5.
57.
Weisburd, D., C.M. Lum and A. Petrosino (2001) `Does Research Design Affect Study Outcomes in Criminal Justice?', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science578(November): 50—70.
58.
Wilson, D.B., L.A. Bouffard and D.L. Mackenzie (2005) `A Quantitative Review of Structured, Group-Orientated, Cognitive-Behavioural Programs for Offenders', Criminal Justice and Behavior32(2): 172—204.
59.
Wormith, J.S. and M.E. Olver (2002) `Offender Treatment Attrition and Its Relationship with Risk, Responsivity, and Recidivism', Criminal Justice and Behavior29(4): 447—71.
