= Solution
A court-based <randomized controlled trial> would assign eligible offenders between the two sentencing policies using <randomization>, ideally stratified by court and important prespecified risk factors. With <allocation concealment>, the next assignment cannot be selected to suit an offender's prognosis. Baseline characteristics, both recorded and unrecorded, are balanced in distribution rather than confounded with judges' sentencing preferences. This makes a comparison of outcomes interpretable as a <causal effect> of assignment, subject to complete and comparable follow-up, whereas separate historical cohorts can differ in severity, social circumstances or calendar period.
The commission should compare both specified outcomes over the same 360-day period from sentencing, using an <intention-to-treat analysis>. An offender initially assigned community service remains in that group even if the order is later revoked and prison follows. Revocation is part of the policy's consequences; restricting the comparison to completers would select on a post-assignment outcome and lose the protection of <randomization>.
Within-court individual <randomization> also provides an objective allocation procedure and valid uncertainty estimates. It does not guarantee identical characteristics in a particular finite sample or eliminate loss to follow-up, unequal outcome ascertainment or limited generalizability. Eligibility, genuine uncertainty about the two policies, and a feasible authorized allocation mechanism would need agreement before the trial. If whole courts rather than individuals were assigned, that would be a <cluster-randomized trial> and its correlation structure would require a different <sample size> calculation.
Back to article page
