The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

done within existing departmental constraints by reducing supervision for those already
deemed unlikely to fail. This experiment clearly demonstrates that there is no need to
distribute valuable resources equally to all types <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fender.
Struggling probation
agencies should ask whether it remains necessary to provide more supervision when it
makes so little difference to the <strong>of</strong>fending outcomes <strong>of</strong> what will likely be a large
proportion <strong>of</strong> their total caseload. Whichever way one looks at it, probation supervision
for low-risk <strong>of</strong>fenders is clearly one area where ‘more,’ in the usual care sense, does not
inevitably mean ‘better.’
Notes
1 All operational information about the Philadelphia APPD presented in this paper was gathered through
conversations with APPD staff and University <strong>of</strong> Pennsylvania research staff, and in-person visits to the
APPD <strong>of</strong>fices.
2 In this experiment, murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, robbery, and sexual <strong>of</strong>fenses were
deemed ‘serious.’
3 Intake information includes the <strong>of</strong>fender’s personal and residential characteristics, and information about
the instant <strong>of</strong>fense and prior criminal history.
4 Prior to the implementation <strong>of</strong> the Low Risk Experiment, Philadelphia APPD already had several low-risk
caseloads within the regional units. Offenders were assigned to them based on the judgment <strong>of</strong> their
probation <strong>of</strong>ficer rather than a standardized prediction model. However, because they had already
experienced a systematic lower-intensity model <strong>of</strong> probation compared to standard practice that was too
similar to the experimental design, they were excluded from the Low Risk Experiment.
5 Offenders with potential direct violations were excluded because the workload <strong>of</strong> preparing new cases for
court was deemed too onerous for a probation <strong>of</strong>ficer with such a large caseload. All <strong>of</strong>fenders assigned to
low-intensity probation were returned to standard supervision if they were arrested for a new <strong>of</strong>fense during
the experimental period.
6 A major exclusion criterion that had not been considered at the time <strong>of</strong> random assignment was the FIR
(Forensic Intensive Recovery) condition. FIR <strong>of</strong>fenders are supervised in regional caseloads but are
required to attend an intensive drug treatment program. <strong>The</strong> supervision <strong>of</strong> their participation in the
program was too involved for low-intensity probation <strong>of</strong>ficers to handle in their large caseloads. Prescreening
also revealed that a considerable number <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fenders were either on absconder warrants or had
not been in contact with their probation <strong>of</strong>ficer for more than 90 days (which is grounds for obtaining a
warrant). Again, because these <strong>of</strong>fenders were in violation <strong>of</strong> their probation and more work would be
required to process them, they were not transferred to low-intensity supervision.
107