Constructing a Quasi-Controlled Environment

Three alternative techniques are utilized for evaluation of a law enforcement experiment. (I) forecasting holding the experimental variables constant to compare with the observed time series, (2) interrupted time series analysis, and (3) contrasting observed experimental results with a controlled environment. Each of the first two have theoretical or practical weaknesses noted in the literature of econometrics and sociometries. The third approach is to construct, from a set of 72 alternatives, a control group appropriate to the circum stances of the test for the purpose of evaluation. A technique is presented for selecting the best quasi-control group. This technique should find suitable application in situations in which the first two alternatives would be inappropriate. Test results do not differ sig nificantly among the three alternatives.

[1]  Llad Phillips,et al.  Crime, Youth, and the Labor Market , 1972, Journal of Political Economy.

[2]  David C. Baldus,et al.  A Comparison of the Work of Thorsten Sellin and Isaac Ehrlich on the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment , 1975 .

[3]  Benjamin Okner,et al.  Constructing a New Data Base from Existing Microdata Sets: The 1966 Merge File , 1972 .

[4]  Isaac Ehrlich,et al.  Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Further Thoughts and Additional Evidence , 1977, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  H. Ross.  The Scandinavian Myth: The Effectiveness of Drinking-and-Driving Legislation in Sweden and Norway , 1975, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[6]  Horst E. Alter,et al.  Creation of a Synthetic Data Set by Linking Records of the Canadian Survey of Consumer Finances with the Family Expenditure Survey , 1974 .

[7]  G. Chow.  Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions (econometrics voi 28 , 1960 .

[8]  Llad Phillips,et al.  Crime Control in California , 1975, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[9]  F. Fisher.  Tests of Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions: An Expository Note , 1970 .

[10]  I. Ehrlich.  Deterrence: Evidence and Inference , 1975 .

[11]  Isaac Ehrlich,et al.  The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death , 1973 .

[12]  Jan Palmer,et al.  Economic Analyses of the Deterrent Effect of Punishment: A Review , 1977 .

[13]  H. Votey.  Detention of Heroin Addicts, Job Opportunities, and Deterrence , 1979, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[14]  J. Magidson.  Toward a Causal Model Approach for Adjusting for Preexisting Differences in the Nonequivalent Control Group Situation , 1977 .

[15]  D. Rindskopf.  Secondary analysis: Using multiple analysis approaches with Head Start and Title I data , 1978 .

[16]  A. Blumstein,et al.  Deterrence and incapacitation : estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates , 1980 .

[17]  M Steven,et al.  Underadjustment Bias in the Evaluation of Manpower Training. , 1979 .

[18]  William J. Bowers,et al.  The Illusion of Deterrence in Isaac Ehrlich's Research on Capital Punishment , 1975 .

[19]  Benjamin Okner,et al.  Data Matching and Merging: An Overview , 1974 .

[20]  Nancy D. Ruggles,et al.  A Strategy for Merging and Matching Microdata Sets , 1974 .