The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

We found that low-risk <strong>of</strong>fenders are a relatively heterogeneous group compared
to the ‘typical’ image <strong>of</strong> the young male <strong>of</strong>fender.
Low-risk <strong>of</strong>fenders appear to
encompass a much broader spectrum <strong>of</strong> society in terms <strong>of</strong> gender, race, age, social
circumstances and <strong>of</strong>fending pr<strong>of</strong>iles. We found no evidence that this heterogeneity has
any impact on which <strong>of</strong>fenders actually received the treatment. <strong>The</strong> homogeneity in lowrisk
<strong>of</strong>fenders’ propensity to re<strong>of</strong>fend is interesting from both theoretical and policy
perspectives, because it suggests that the relationship <strong>of</strong> crime risk factors to the
likelihood <strong>of</strong> re<strong>of</strong>fending may be considerably weakened when the risk <strong>of</strong> a future serious
<strong>of</strong>fense is low. This may be a much more important theoretical basis for the effectiveness
<strong>of</strong> LIS than any <strong>of</strong> the possible mechanisms we considered at the outset <strong>of</strong> this paper.
<strong>The</strong> finding is also important for the operation <strong>of</strong> a probation agency because it implies
that specific case attributes do not affect probation performance for a large proportion <strong>of</strong>
the population. Differential attributes only appear to come into play for the majority <strong>of</strong>
this group at the risk prediction stage. After that, the propensity <strong>of</strong> low-risk probationers
to <strong>of</strong>fend is going to be the same regardless <strong>of</strong> the level <strong>of</strong> supervision they receive, with
just a few modifications required for early-career or more ‘traditional’ clients who may
still be on an upward trajectory <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending. Overall, this seems to be a very powerful
justification for the use <strong>of</strong> LIS instead <strong>of</strong> ‘supervision as usual.’
Thus, we conclude that low-intensity probation supervision, coupled with a
rigorous method for predicting the risk <strong>of</strong> serious <strong>of</strong>fending, is a defensible model for
effective probation operations. It remains to be seen whether the other arm <strong>of</strong> APPD’s
restructuring strategy – providing increased supervision and services to the most serious
<strong>of</strong>fenders in small caseloads – proves successful, but we have ascertained that it can be
106