The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk
The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk
The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
directi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects is as we would expect given prior research. In the RCTs, assignment<br />
to intensive supervisi<strong>on</strong> made no difference to the prevalence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rearrest or rec<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong><br />
(mean OR for arrests = .93; p ≤ .72; mean OR for c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>s = .98, p ≤ .80). We also<br />
see no significant effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP in the quasi-experiments, although note that the raw effect<br />
sizes (especially for c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>s) show moderate reducti<strong>on</strong>s in recidivism associated with<br />
ISP and the small number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies in these categories reduce the likelihood <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a finding<br />
being statistically significant (mean OR for arrests = .83, p ≤ .10; mean OR for<br />
c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>s = .60, p ≤ .10). <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> forest plot for c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong> outcomes (Figure 1.4) suggests<br />
that there is a lot <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> uncertainty in this model: the c<strong>on</strong>fidence interval around the mean<br />
effect size is clearly very large.<br />
Our analyses also indicate an increase in technical violati<strong>on</strong>s associated with ISP.<br />
Across the RCTs, intensive supervisi<strong>on</strong> was associated with a 54 per cent increase in the<br />
odds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a technical violati<strong>on</strong> (mean OR = 1.54, p ≤ .06). A smaller, n<strong>on</strong>-significant<br />
increase <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 29 per cent was observed across the quasi-experiments (mean OR = 1.29, p ≤<br />
.22) but is again based <strong>on</strong> a much smaller subset <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies. Finally, we found no effect<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP for the subset <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies reporting drug related effects (mean OR = 1.14, p ≤ .10).<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> mean effect sizes should be interpreted with cauti<strong>on</strong> given the very small number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
events in some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the studies (see Figure 1.7).<br />
Table 1.2 indicates substantial heterogeneity across studies in four <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> our seven<br />
analyses, as evidenced by the highly significant Q statistics (RCT arrests: Q = 61.55, p <<br />
.001; RCT technical violati<strong>on</strong>s: Q = 120.11, p < .001; quasi-experiment technical<br />
violati<strong>on</strong>s: Q = 18.91, p ≤ .004; quasi-experiment c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>s: Q = 22.74, p < .001). This<br />
indicates that there is more variability between studies than we would expect from the<br />
28