The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

low-intensity supervision would improve the likelihood <strong>of</strong> picking up the false positives,
but resources would still have been conserved if the risk prediction proved accurate.
Two other notable findings from this analysis were the differential effects by
probation region, and the finding that <strong>of</strong>fenders without any <strong>of</strong>fending history in the
previous year were more likely to fail than those without. <strong>The</strong> latter can be easily
explained. This variable was a rate calculated by dividing the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fenses by the
number <strong>of</strong> months in the year in which the <strong>of</strong>fender was out <strong>of</strong> jail and able to re<strong>of</strong>fend.
Thus, those who spent the entire year in prison have a rate <strong>of</strong> zero, as do <strong>of</strong>fenders who
were at liberty the whole time but did not engage in criminal behavior. Offenders who
spent more time in jail are more likely to be serious <strong>of</strong>fenders with a higher risk <strong>of</strong> failure
once free. It is difficult to tell whether the difference in supervision styles between the
two probation <strong>of</strong>ficers really drove the difference in recidivism outcomes between the
two regions, but reduced recidivism in the West was consistently observed. Since the
<strong>of</strong>ficers were required to have minimal contact with their clients, it seems unlikely that
their personalities would have made a great deal <strong>of</strong> difference to <strong>of</strong>fenders’ behavior.
Thus, unobserved factors most likely operated here. We discussed above some <strong>of</strong> the
differences in <strong>of</strong>fender characteristics between the two regions. It is also possible that
more <strong>of</strong>fenders from the West region were incarcerated (or incarcerated for longer
periods) during the follow-up period than those in the Northeast.
A major limitation <strong>of</strong> our subgroup analysis was a lack <strong>of</strong> available information
about <strong>of</strong>fenders. <strong>The</strong> subgroups we studied – gender, race, SES, age, and <strong>of</strong>fending
history – are theoretically some <strong>of</strong> the most important covariates with <strong>of</strong>fending, but there
is no reason why they would specifically impact the performance <strong>of</strong> low-risk <strong>of</strong>fenders
102