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.
Interventi<strong>on</strong>s and Follow-Up<br />
Probati<strong>on</strong> clients assigned to the treatment group (LIS) were placed in a caseload<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> four hundred. Two probati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers handled the entire low-intensity caseload <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 800<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders. Clients received a c<strong>on</strong>siderably reduced level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> supervisi<strong>on</strong> compared to the<br />
standard model described above. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> full supervisi<strong>on</strong> protocol, including details about<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tact frequency and type, may be found in Appendix E. At their first visit with the<br />
low-intensity probati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficer, treatment group subjects were informed that they were in<br />
a low-risk caseload and subject to these new reporting requirements. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y were told that<br />
they would be transferred back to standard supervisi<strong>on</strong> if they were arrested for a new<br />
crime. Low-intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers were not expected to handle new <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses. However, they<br />
were expected to deal with technical violati<strong>on</strong>s that did not result in an arrest or warrant<br />
(e.g., missed c<strong>on</strong>tacts). In order to maintain low-intensity caseload sizes at 400,<br />
probati<strong>on</strong>ers who were transferred back to standard supervisi<strong>on</strong> were replaced by<br />
‘backfill’ cases. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>se were <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders from the general caseload who had been predicted<br />
low-risk but were not initially randomly assigned. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>se cases are not analyzed as part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
the experiment, but they ensured the integrity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the low-intensity model by keeping<br />
caseloads too large for the <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers to spend more time with their low-risk clients. 7<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>trol group received SAU according to the descripti<strong>on</strong> above. While<br />
probati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers in this group had smaller caseloads and could in theory spend more<br />
time working to address <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders’ needs, in practice caseloads were still large enough<br />
that the c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> meetings was essentially the same in both the treatment and c<strong>on</strong>trol<br />
70