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.
Differential treatment take-up and subgroup effects<br />
Treatment take-up (who actually receives the treatment, regardless <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> random<br />
assignment) and subgroup effects are two different but related issues that could affect the<br />
impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> LIS <strong>on</strong> recidivism. Very few experiments c<strong>on</strong>ducted in ‘real world’ settings<br />
operate perfectly (Berk, 2005).<br />
Characteristics or circumstances <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender,<br />
probati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficer, or agency (as well as errors and individual overrides or ethical<br />
c<strong>on</strong>cerns) could prevent the delivery <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the treatment to those assigned to receive it, or<br />
lead to c<strong>on</strong>trol group members receiving the treatment (‘crossover’). Both situati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
affect the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s we are able to draw about experimental outcomes. Similarly, it is<br />
c<strong>on</strong>ceivable that these characteristics may also interact with treatment, leading to<br />
differential outcomes that could masked by the average effect for the full sample. For<br />
example, a treatment could prove to be more effective for women than it is for men.<br />
As described above, the analyses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> both the main first year results <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this<br />
experiment and the other research questi<strong>on</strong>s presented here are based <strong>on</strong> the randomly<br />
assigned treatment c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> (ITT) rather than the treatment actually delivered (TAD).<br />
ITT is the preferred method <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the two, because it reduces the possibility <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
bias resulting from differences in treatment compliance. For example, we know that<br />
some treatment group members did not receive LIS because they were later found to be<br />
wanted for absc<strong>on</strong>ding.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir n<strong>on</strong>compliance may place them at higher risk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending than other LIS participants.<br />
Excluding them from the analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />
treatment group outcomes could introduce an upward bias in the effectiveness <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> LIS.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> ITT approach avoids this bias by retaining these <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders in the treatment group.<br />
As such, ITT provides a better estimate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the policy <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> LIS, because in the real world<br />
78