The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

supervision with probation <strong>of</strong>ficers trained in therapeutic techniques, and repeat violators
were directed to treatment services as well as being punished (Hawken & Kleiman,
2009).
Taken together, the research on ISP to date suggests a complex dynamic that goes
beyond earlier assertions that the programs do not work. Furthermore, even less is
known about the converse <strong>of</strong> ISP: increasing caseloads and reducing contacts (‘lowintensity’
supervision). <strong>The</strong> PEI would suggest that ISP be reserved for the highest-risk
<strong>of</strong>fenders, with reduced surveillance and services for those at the lowest end <strong>of</strong> the riskneed
spectrum. <strong>The</strong>re is some speculation that increased caseloads can lead to harmful
reductions in supervision, putting society at risk from <strong>of</strong>fenders whose probation <strong>of</strong>ficers
have too many clients to ensure that each one is not a threat to public safety (e.g.,Worrall
et al., 2004; 3 Lemert, 1993). However, Glaser (1983) speculated that reduced frequency
<strong>of</strong> contact would not adversely affect low-risk or low-need clients. This suggestion is
supported empirically, notably by a recent randomized experiment (Barnes et al.,
forthcoming; also Johnson, Austin, & Davies, 2003; Wilson, Naro, & Austin, 2007).
Additionally, several studies have indicated that more intensive supervision can have
unfavorable effects on the recidivism <strong>of</strong> low-risk <strong>of</strong>fenders (Erwin, 1986; Hanley, 2006;
Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006). We still have much to learn about probation
and parole supervision, and the circumstances under which its use is effective in reducing
crime.
8