The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

treatment providers. Evaluations <strong>of</strong> these programs are eligible as long as the probation
<strong>of</strong>ficer is the primary supervisor. This limitation allows us to maintain a degree <strong>of</strong>
equivalence between treatment providers and settings, and between treatment and control
group conditions. For example, we included a study in which probation <strong>of</strong>ficers provided
increased supervision by frequently visiting clients’ homes accompanied by a police
<strong>of</strong>ficer (Piquero, 2003). However, we excluded a study in which the only difference in
supervision intensity between the treatment and control groups was that treatment group
probationers were assigned police <strong>of</strong>ficers who made unannounced visits during their
regular patrol shifts to monitor probation compliance (Giblin, 2002).
We also restrict our analysis to the study <strong>of</strong> adjudicated <strong>of</strong>fenders sentenced to
probation or granted parole. Probation services may also be provided at the pretrial stage,
or as part <strong>of</strong> diversion strategies for first-time juvenile arrestees or ‘pre-delinquent’
adolescents. We hypothesize that there may be substantial differences in the <strong>of</strong>fending
propensities <strong>of</strong> participants in these programs compared to adjudicated <strong>of</strong>fenders,
particularly because <strong>of</strong>fenders at the pretrial stage are not guaranteed to receive any
conviction or sentence. <strong>The</strong>re is also no straightforward comparison condition to pretrial
probation in the same way that ‘supervision as usual’ simply involves more or less <strong>of</strong> the
same intervention.
Types <strong>of</strong> studies
We attempt to maximize internal validity in our selection <strong>of</strong> studies by limiting
the sample to studies meeting at least a ‘high’ Level 4 on the Maryland Scientific
11