Randomized trial reveals conflicting evaluations of monthly allowances on recidivism in ex-convicts, highlighting methodological challenges in social policy experiments.
Under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Labor, the states of Texas and Georgia engaged in what was perhaps the most careful large-scale randomized controlled experiment ever conducted in a natural setting. It was designed to test the widely supported theory that the recidivism rate of ex-convicts could be reduced or retarded by providing them for a time with a monthly monetary allowance. During the evaluation of the experiment, a radical difference of opinion over the correct interpretation of its results arose between the evaluators (Peter H. Rossi, Richard A. Berk, and Kenneth J. Lenihan) and Hans Zeisel, a member of the advisory board. This article, together with the comment and reply that follow it, explicates this difference and attempts to resolve it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hans Zeisel (1982) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: