The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

probation allows deterrence to work because in terms <strong>of</strong> sanctions, the consequences <strong>of</strong>
failure are much greater than they are under more intensive conditions. <strong>The</strong> lowerintensity
sanction may also result in less stigma for the <strong>of</strong>fender, which may lead to a
defiant criminal response. We also suggested that low-intensity probation, by reducing
required attendance at the probation <strong>of</strong>fice, may reduce the likelihood that probationers
will associate with more serious <strong>of</strong>fenders and strengthen ties with pro-social networks
closer to home. Finally, we noted that the idea <strong>of</strong> low-intensity supervision is consistent
with strongly-established principles <strong>of</strong> correctional treatment in which only those in the
most need <strong>of</strong> services receive them.
<strong>The</strong> Philadelphia APPD Low Risk Experiment
<strong>The</strong> Philadelphia APPD Low Risk Experiment was designed as a rigorous test <strong>of</strong>
a policy <strong>of</strong> reducing the intensity <strong>of</strong> probation supervision for low-risk <strong>of</strong>fenders. <strong>The</strong>
Philadelphia experiment is the first to test this proposition using a randomized controlled
trial (RCT) design. <strong>The</strong> following section describes the study design and main results.
Additional details may be found in Barnes et al. (forthcoming).
Background to the experiment
Philadelphia’s Adult Probation and Parole Department (APPD), like other
probation departments in the U.S., grapples with the problem <strong>of</strong> increased caseloads and
limited resources. <strong>The</strong> average caseload <strong>of</strong> a Philadelphia probation <strong>of</strong>ficer is 150 to 200
<strong>of</strong>fenders (Berk et al., 2009). Around 19 per cent <strong>of</strong> people arrested for fatal and non-
65