The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

Programs should be designed to adhere to three core principles: risk, need, and
responsivity. <strong>The</strong> principles are interlinked: programs must be responsive to <strong>of</strong>fenders’
specific risk factors and needs. <strong>The</strong> risk principle is the most widely researched and
validated <strong>of</strong> the PEI. Its key implication is that high-intensity interventions should be
reserved for high risk, high need <strong>of</strong>fenders. Thus, the risk principle corresponds to an
earlier paradigm for correctional treatment set out in the criminological literature: the
principle <strong>of</strong> the ‘least restrictive alternative’ (Rubin, 1975), which posits that punishment
should be as unobtrusive as possible – no more than the minimum level needed to
manage <strong>of</strong>fenders’ behavior.
<strong>The</strong> risk principle clearly highlights a need to develop effective and reliable risk
prediction instruments in order to identify low- and high-risk <strong>of</strong>fenders and direct them to
appropriate sentences, supervision, and treatment. This is important not only in ensuring
that <strong>of</strong>fenders receive suitable services, but also in developing effective resource
management in criminal justice agencies. Probation and parole agencies are a classic
example <strong>of</strong> an environment in which good risk assessment is crucial. <strong>The</strong> growing use <strong>of</strong>
probation and parole in the last two decades (e.g., Glaze & Bonczar, 2009), coupled with
a crisis in funding (Petersilia, 1997), has led to large caseloads and limited ability <strong>of</strong>
probation <strong>of</strong>ficers to supervise <strong>of</strong>fenders appropriately.
In Philadelphia, average
caseloads can be as large as 150 to 200 clients to one <strong>of</strong>ficer (Berk et al., 2009). This is
not unusual, or particularly new: similar standard caseload sizes were reported in the
California probation agencies included in the RAND Corporation’s intensive probation
experiments in the 1980s (Petersilia & Turner, 1990). In the absence <strong>of</strong> short-term
solutions to funding difficulties, risk assessment is needed to identify the most serious
134