The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

Figures
Figure 2.1: Risk-Based Allocation Strategies in the Philadelphia APPD
High risk – 10%
Low risk – 60%
Respond to and treat all
<strong>of</strong>fenders the same,
modify with clinical
predictions
Respond to and treat all
<strong>of</strong>fenders based on actuarial risk
<strong>of</strong> a new serious <strong>of</strong>fense
(Diagram provided by Lindsay Ahlman, Philadelphia APPD)
Figure 2.2: Case Flow Chart for the Philadelphia APPD Low Risk Experiment
Assessed for eligibility: 7,830
All cases under active supervision in
West and Northeast, 27-Jul-2007
Enrollment
Random Assignment: 1,559
1-Oct-2007
Excluded from random assignment: 6,271
Pre-screening on 28-Aug-2007
Missing unique ID no.: 431
Missing reliability score: 576
Not predicted low risk: 3,964
Low risk exclusions: 1,300
Existing low-risk caseload: 177
Mixed low and non-low cases: 95
Potential direct violation: 320
< 30 days remaining on probation: 565
Transferred to specialized caseload by
date <strong>of</strong> pre-screening: 143
Treatment Group: 800
Transferred to low-intensity caseload
3-Oct-2007
Received allocated intervention: 658
Did not receive allocated intervention: 142
Transfer to specialized caseload: 4
No open probation cases: 10
Abscond/no contact 90+ days: 47
Require Spanish-speaking <strong>of</strong>ficer: 2
FIR condition: 58
Potential direct violation: 16
Transfer out <strong>of</strong> county: 2
Deceased: 2
Held back by director due to poor
casework: 1
Control Group: 759
Received allocated intervention: 639
Did not receive allocated intervention: 120
Transfer to specialized caseload: 8
No open probation cases: 10
Abscond/no contact 90+ days: 40
Require Spanish-speaking <strong>of</strong>ficer: 2
FIR condition: 50
Potential direct violation: 10
Adapted from Barnes et al., forthcoming.
126