The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

Study
Dallas TX
1992
(Turner &
Petersilia,
1992)
Des Moines
IA 1992
(Petersilia,
Turner, &
Deschenes,
1992b)
Houston
TX 1992
(Turner &
Petersilia,
1992)
Santa Fe
NM 1992
(Petersilia,
Turner, &
Deschenes,
1992b)
Research
Design
Randomized
controlled
trial
Randomized
controlled
trial
Randomized
controlled
trial
Randomized
controlled
trial
Population
Adult property
<strong>of</strong>fenders (mostly
male), initially in
prison and high
risk <strong>of</strong> recidivism
on parole.
Probationers and
parolees
convicted <strong>of</strong> drug
<strong>of</strong>fense or
burglary with
drug abuse
history.
Adult property
<strong>of</strong>fenders (mostly
male), initially in
prison and high
risk <strong>of</strong> recidivism
on parole.
Probationers and
parolees with
high risk and
need.
Intervention
25:1 caseload with 10 contacts
per month – mix <strong>of</strong> in-person
<strong>of</strong>fice/home visits & telephone.
Employment assistance,
discretionary drug testing.
35:1 caseload. Initially 16 faceto-face,
4 phone contacts and 8
drug tests per month, gradually
decreasing. Curfew. Emphasis
on urinalysis, unannounced
visits and collateral contact
Treatment and employment
mandated.
25:1 caseload with 10 contacts
per month – mix <strong>of</strong> in-person
<strong>of</strong>fice/home visits & telephone.
Employment assistance,
discretionary drug testing.
35:2 caseload. Initially 12 faceto-face
contacts, 8 unannounced
home visits, 4 drug tests per
month. <strong>The</strong>rapeutic approach:
counseling, job development,
group therapy.
Comparison
85:1 caseload, 1
<strong>of</strong>fice visit per
month, occasional
home visits, no drug
testing requirement.
70:1 mixed caseload,
routine supervision,
risk determines
contact levels. Most
on highest level: 2
face-to-face and 2
collateral/month.
Discretionary testing.
85:1 caseload, 1
<strong>of</strong>fice visit per
month, occasional
home visits, no drug
testing requirement.
60:1 caseload,
routine supervision,
2 face-to-face and 1
<strong>of</strong>fice visit per
month, discretionary
testing and treatment
referral.
Outcome
Treatment group
more likely to
fail on technical
violations,
arrests, and
convictions.
Treatment group
more likely to
fail on technical
violations, less
likely on arrests
and convictions.
Treatment group
more likely to
fail on technical
violations and
arrests, but less
likely on
convictions.
Treatment group
less likely to fail
on technical
violations, more
likely on arrests
and convictions.
198