The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

model provides predictive validity; is directly relevant to correctional priorities in its
focus on the rare but highly harmful crime events <strong>of</strong> concern to Philadelphia APPD, and
its role in facilitating the most effective allocation <strong>of</strong> operational resources; and adheres
to the principle <strong>of</strong> the least restrictive alternative by using a measure <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending severity
that does not overestimate the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fenders requiring more intensive supervision.
<strong>The</strong> results <strong>of</strong> our investigation into a possible interaction between supervision
intensity and serious <strong>of</strong>fending showed no evidence that reducing supervision intensity
for predicted low-risk <strong>of</strong>fenders might increase the risk <strong>of</strong> serious <strong>of</strong>fending. However,
although the analysis did not indicate a statistically significant interaction effect, we
found that probationers assigned to low-intensity supervision only reduced their
<strong>of</strong>fending compared to controls when they had no prior serious <strong>of</strong>fending history. In
such cases, the probability <strong>of</strong> a new <strong>of</strong>fense was halved. Low-risk probationers with a
history <strong>of</strong> serious <strong>of</strong>fending performed no better than their counterparts on traditional
supervision. It is possible that this interaction did not reach significance because <strong>of</strong> the
very small number <strong>of</strong> post-RA serious charges during the two-year follow-up period <strong>of</strong>
the Low Risk Experiment.
This finding provides further evidence that low-intensity supervision can be a
safe, effective probation strategy. <strong>The</strong> idea that some <strong>of</strong>fenders receiving a low-risk
prediction might have a history <strong>of</strong> serious <strong>of</strong>fending could be objectionable to
policymakers and the public. However, this analysis shows that reduced supervision is,
at worst, no different from the status quo. At best, it may reduce re<strong>of</strong>fending for
probationers with the lowest-level criminal careers. This is also an important discovery
about the nature <strong>of</strong> low risk <strong>of</strong>fenders in general. It appears that low-level <strong>of</strong>fenders
167