The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

esearch we uncovered on ISP, there is little qualitative inquiry into the nature <strong>of</strong> the
probation <strong>of</strong>ficer-client interactions.
Bonta et al. (2008) are among the few researchers who attempted to get inside
what they call the “black box” <strong>of</strong> supervision. <strong>The</strong>y discovered that the <strong>of</strong>ficers they
studied spent “too much” time on enforcement rather than service delivery; did not
account for the PEI or criminogenic need in their supervision strategies; and were not
equipped with the necessary tools to effect behavioral change. <strong>The</strong> elements Bonta et al.
found lacking seem to match the characteristics we suggest may be the key to successful
ISP programs. Enforcement may well be easier, if not less time-consuming, than the
service-oriented elements <strong>of</strong> supervision: identifying non-compliance may be more clearcut
than identifying individualized needs and tailoring case plans accordingly.
We therefore call for more research into probation supervision in general, ideally
combining quantitative and qualitative methods, to uncover exactly what characteristics
and processes influence successful outcomes. This review has shown that ‘more’ does
not equal ‘better’ – in most cases intensive probation does not improve recidivism, and
may even increase technical violations.
However, we cannot yet conclusively say
whether more <strong>of</strong> the ‘right stuff’ is better, and to do that we first need a much greater
understanding <strong>of</strong> what the ‘right stuff’ is.
Notes
1 In the subsequent narrative we do not differentiate between probation and parole. ‘Probation’ is used as
shorthand for both unless otherwise stated. In many agencies there is little difference in supervision
practices for both probation and parole clients.
41