The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

agency’s jurisdiction. Table 1.1 shows some limited participant characteristics that could
be generalized across studies. We found a mix <strong>of</strong> studies evaluating programs for either
juvenile probationers, or youth (18 and over) and adults. Study samples comprised
mostly male <strong>of</strong>fenders. Only two studies examined ISP versus SAU in exclusively
female caseloads. 15
Most samples comprised high or mostly high risk <strong>of</strong>fenders (as
assessed by classification instruments or <strong>of</strong>fending history), reflecting the fact that ISP
has usually been used as a means <strong>of</strong> community supervision for more serious <strong>of</strong>fenders
who might otherwise have gone to prison. Needs assessments were not frequently
discussed so we do not present these results, but where needs assessments were carried
out most ISP <strong>of</strong>fenders were classified as high need for services, <strong>of</strong>ten based on drug and
alcohol dependencies.
Overall mean effects <strong>of</strong> probation supervision intensity on recidivism
Table 1.2 shows the results <strong>of</strong> the main analysis examining how probation
supervision intensity is related to subsequent <strong>of</strong>fending and technical violations. Each
row <strong>of</strong> the table, along with the estimated effect sizes for each included study, is visually
represented in separate forest plots (Figures 1.1 to 1.7). Across the 47 studies, we
obtained a total <strong>of</strong> 213 different outcome measures. <strong>The</strong> present study makes use <strong>of</strong>
those that measure the prevalence <strong>of</strong> arrests, drug arrests, convictions, and technical
violations. 16
<strong>The</strong> results reported in Table 1.2 are consistent with what we already know about
intensive supervision. None <strong>of</strong> the mean effect sizes is statistically significant, and the
27