The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

To what extent does program philosophy influence the effect <strong>of</strong> changes in supervision
intensity on recidivism?
Table 1.3 indicates no effect <strong>of</strong> program philosophy on recidivism (arrests and
convictions) in the 38 RCTs included in the study, based on the meta-analytic analog to
the ANOVA (Q B = 1.73, p ≤ .421). Most <strong>of</strong> the studies were <strong>of</strong> surveillance/treatment
hybrid programs (N = 17). In these programs, the odds <strong>of</strong> failure in the treatment group
were marginally smaller than in the treatment group, but no real effect is observed (mean
OR = .93, p ≤ .525). Similar results were observed in the 15 surveillance-based programs
(mean OR = .92, p ≤ .475). Interestingly, <strong>of</strong>fenders in treatment-based programs did
have 20 per cent greater odds <strong>of</strong> recidivism than their counterparts in regular probation,
but the effect size is not statistically significant, and its reliability is questionable because
it is only based on 6 studies, 5 <strong>of</strong> which were conducted by the same evaluators (mean
OR = 1.20, p ≤ .314). Unfortunately, we were unable to build a good picture <strong>of</strong> the
moderating effect <strong>of</strong> supervision philosophy on ISP and technical violations because
none <strong>of</strong> the studies reporting technical violation outcomes followed a treatment-based
model (Table 1.4). As we would expect, technical violations were higher in both controlbased
(N = 13) and hybrid (N = 3) programs. For both program types the odds <strong>of</strong> a
technical violation was about fifty per cent greater in the treatment groups than the
control groups (mean OR for control-based: 1.55, p ≤ .091; mean OR for hybrid: 1.46, p
≤ .481). However, the statistical difference between these estimates is negligible (Q B =
.01, p ≤ .923) .
30