12.03.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

groups. However, c<strong>on</strong>trol group <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders saw their probati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers more frequently.<br />

C<strong>on</strong>trol group <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders c<strong>on</strong>tinued their regular appointments with their usual probati<strong>on</strong><br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficer and were not informed <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> their low-risk predicti<strong>on</strong> or experimental status.<br />

Re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending data, including charges for new <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses, technical violati<strong>on</strong>s, and<br />

wanted card issuances, were collected for each participant.<br />

New charge data are<br />

available for the two years post-random assignment. For the low-intensity model to be<br />

c<strong>on</strong>sidered a success, failure rates in the treatment group had to be at least the same, if<br />

not lower, than in the c<strong>on</strong>trol group. As l<strong>on</strong>g as recidivism was not worse in the<br />

treatment group, the APPD deemed low-intensity supervisi<strong>on</strong> an acceptable policy.<br />

Main results<br />

Barnes et al. (forthcoming) report experimental outcomes <strong>on</strong>e year post-random<br />

assignment. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y note that treatment group cases received approximately 45 per cent<br />

fewer c<strong>on</strong>tacts than they had in the year prior to random assignment, while the amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

c<strong>on</strong>tact in the c<strong>on</strong>trol group did not change. Assuming c<strong>on</strong>trol group <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders had a<br />

face-to-face meeting with their probati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers <strong>on</strong>ce a m<strong>on</strong>th, treatment group<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders were expected to receive <strong>on</strong>e face-to-face c<strong>on</strong>tact for every six c<strong>on</strong>trol group<br />

c<strong>on</strong>tacts, or <strong>on</strong>e c<strong>on</strong>tact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> any type (face-to-face or teleph<strong>on</strong>e) for every three c<strong>on</strong>trol<br />

group c<strong>on</strong>tacts. This standard was not quite met, but LIS participants still received a<br />

lower-intensity interventi<strong>on</strong>. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y received about half the number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tacts as the<br />

c<strong>on</strong>trol group overall. In practice, some c<strong>on</strong>trol group members met their probati<strong>on</strong><br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers less than <strong>on</strong>ce a m<strong>on</strong>th, and some treatment group members saw their probati<strong>on</strong><br />

71

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!