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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender’s m<strong>on</strong>thly <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending rate in the year pre-random assignment. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> m<strong>on</strong>thly<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending rate was calculated by dividing the number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses for which the <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender<br />
was charged that took place in the year prior to random assignment by the number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
m<strong>on</strong>ths during that year that the <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender was able to <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fend (i.e., was not in jail). Our<br />
dataset c<strong>on</strong>tained dummy variables showing whether or not the <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender was in jail<br />
during each m<strong>on</strong>th in that time period. We checked for multicollinearity between the<br />
race and SES variables by obtaining the correlati<strong>on</strong> coefficient for the two variables,<br />
which was 0.44. Although this is a fairly large coefficient, we also obtained the variance<br />
inflati<strong>on</strong> factors, which were all between 1 and 1.5 – well within the c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al<br />
threshold for assessing multicollinearity.<br />
We account for time at risk post-random assignment slightly differently in each<br />
model. In count models, the logged number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> m<strong>on</strong>ths at risk post-random assignment is<br />
included as the exposure or <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fset variable, allowing us to estimate the incidence rate<br />
ratios for pers<strong>on</strong>-m<strong>on</strong>ths <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> follow-up time for the LIS versus SAU groups. In the binary<br />
and two-stage least squares models, we include the number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> m<strong>on</strong>ths at risk as a c<strong>on</strong>trol<br />
variable. 13<br />
We lacked detailed informati<strong>on</strong> about time at risk, which is an important<br />
limitati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> our analysis. 14<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> format <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> our jail time data causes the most problems for assessing time at<br />
risk in the survival analysis model. As previously explained, survival analysis techniques<br />
allow us to assess whether experimental participants were <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders or n<strong>on</strong>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders <strong>on</strong><br />
a daily basis. Because we are <strong>on</strong>ly interested in the time to first <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders who<br />
fail are removed from the risk set because they are no l<strong>on</strong>ger at risk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> that first failure.<br />
However, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders who are in jail cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fend, so the days <strong>on</strong> which they are<br />
83