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.
.450; technical violati<strong>on</strong>s: Q B < .01, p ≤ .987). <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> odds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> recidivism were 50 per cent<br />
greater am<strong>on</strong>g ISP participants in the all-female studies, but this was based <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly two<br />
studies and was n<strong>on</strong>-significant (mean OR = 1.50, p ≤ .299).<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> additi<strong>on</strong>al program characteristics we examined were program type<br />
(enhanced probati<strong>on</strong>/parole or pris<strong>on</strong> diversi<strong>on</strong>); the populati<strong>on</strong> (probati<strong>on</strong>ers, parolees,<br />
or both) and <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense types (any <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses, or a specialized caseload such as drugs) targeted<br />
by the program, and some more specific effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> changes in intensity. Again, small cell<br />
frequencies limit our ability to draw any firm c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s from these analyses. We found<br />
that the odds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> recidivism were lower in pris<strong>on</strong> diversi<strong>on</strong> programs than probati<strong>on</strong><br />
enhancement programs (there were no technical violati<strong>on</strong> data for pris<strong>on</strong> diversi<strong>on</strong><br />
programs), but with <strong>on</strong>ly two studies aiming to divert <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders from pris<strong>on</strong> it is not<br />
possible to say that this reducti<strong>on</strong> was due to intensive supervisi<strong>on</strong>. Not all <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the studies<br />
we included accounted for time at risk in their reporting <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> outcomes, so it is possible that<br />
pris<strong>on</strong> diversi<strong>on</strong> programs appear more successful because participants had a higher<br />
likelihood <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> being reincarcerated and thus incapacitated (Q B = 1.44, p ≤ .231;<br />
enhancement: N = 36, OR = .99, p ≤ .952; diversi<strong>on</strong>: N = 2, OR = .69, p ≤ .207). Few<br />
substantial differences were observed between target populati<strong>on</strong>s and <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense types<br />
either, bey<strong>on</strong>d what might be expected given the nature <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the categories. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> odds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
recidivism and violati<strong>on</strong>s were slightly higher am<strong>on</strong>g parolees compared to probati<strong>on</strong>ers<br />
and mixed caseloads, and am<strong>on</strong>g specialized caseloads compared to mixed <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense types.<br />
Parolees may be more likely to re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fend than <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders who were sentenced to probati<strong>on</strong>;<br />
and <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders who have been singled out for <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense-specific caseloads (e.g., specialized<br />
supervisi<strong>on</strong> for drug <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders) have already been designated as posing a greater risk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
34