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.
effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> LIS <strong>on</strong> recidivism is different when treatment actually received is predicted<br />
rather than treatment assigned. We can then use the predicted values from the 2SLS<br />
model to assign an individual probability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending for each subject, and compare<br />
the mean probability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending at different levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> each subgroup for those who<br />
received LIS.<br />
Although 17.8 per cent (N = 142) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the 800 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders assigned to LIS are known<br />
to have been excluded from the treatment, <strong>on</strong>ly 16.8 per cent (N = 134) are recorded in<br />
our data as such. Since we cannot tell which <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders c<strong>on</strong>stitute the remaining eight<br />
n<strong>on</strong>-treated cases, we simply analyze them as if they received the treatment. We do not<br />
expect this to be a substantial limitati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this analysis, since cases with missing data<br />
represent just 1 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the treatment group and 0.5 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the entire study<br />
sample. Another limitati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> our treatment take-up predicti<strong>on</strong> is that it does not account<br />
for the actual dosage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tacts received, which varied from the experimental protocol in<br />
some cases. However, we are able to estimate outcomes for those <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders who were<br />
assigned to the LIS caseload and were likely to have seen the LIS <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficer at least <strong>on</strong>ce<br />
during the course <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the experiment.<br />
Model c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
All the models we estimate include the same covariates and c<strong>on</strong>trols for time at<br />
risk, both pre- and post-random assignment. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> covariates we include are gender (male<br />
= 1), race (white vs. n<strong>on</strong>-white), 11 the <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender’s age <strong>on</strong> the date <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> random assignment, a<br />
basic indicator <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> socioec<strong>on</strong>omic status (SES), 12 probati<strong>on</strong> regi<strong>on</strong> (West = 1), and the<br />
82