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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Which other comp<strong>on</strong>ents <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> programs or <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender characteristics moderate the overall<br />
effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> supervisi<strong>on</strong> intensity <strong>on</strong> crime?<br />
We examined a range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> other potential moderators <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> supervisi<strong>on</strong><br />
intensity <strong>on</strong> recidivism and technical violati<strong>on</strong>s, the results <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> which are listed in Tables<br />
1.3 and 1.4 respectively. As before, our analyses are somewhat limited by the reduced<br />
cell frequencies when studies are broken out by each level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the moderator variables.<br />
We group our outcomes into three main categories: study characteristics, program<br />
characteristics, and sample characteristics.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> varied program characteristics are<br />
particularly important because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> different activities that c<strong>on</strong>stitutes ISP in<br />
each study.<br />
Am<strong>on</strong>g selected study characteristics (Table 1.3), we found that <strong>on</strong>ly the type <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
publicati<strong>on</strong> was significantly associated with ISP recidivism outcomes (Q B = 11.86, p ≤<br />
.003). Of course, the publicati<strong>on</strong> type does not directly influence the outcome <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a study,<br />
but these results are important because they show that our other results are not affected<br />
by publicati<strong>on</strong> bias (for example, n<strong>on</strong>-publicati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> unfavorable or null-effect results).<br />
In government reports, ISP did not have any effect <strong>on</strong> recidivism <strong>on</strong> average (N = 13, OR<br />
= 1.01, p ≤ .949), but am<strong>on</strong>g the other unpublished papers we found, the odds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
recidivism were significantly reduced by ISP programs (N = 9, OR = .70, p ≤ .002), while<br />
in academic articles there was a marginally significant increase (N = 16, OR = 1.20, p ≤<br />
.085). If we had <strong>on</strong>ly examined the published literature we might have deduced that ISP<br />
does not work, and while these results are not exactly promising they do not lend<br />
themselves to such a drastic c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>. We could not reliably assess different study<br />
settings because almost all <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the studies were c<strong>on</strong>ducted in the U.S., and the five that<br />
32