Carrot or Stick? The Efficacy of Incentives and Sanctions for Improving Probation Supervision Outcomes
Prior Research on Sanctions and Incentives in Community Supervision
Research on the use of sanctions and incentives in community supervision populations has grown considerably over the last decade. As such, it is beyond the scope of this article to review each study on the topic individually; instead, we focus on themes that have emerged in the literature. Before proceeding, it is important to highlight two constraints of the existing research on sanctions and incentives that prompt a level of caution in generalizing the findings. First, it should be recognized that much of the research on this topic focuses on the application of sanctions and incentives in specialized supervision programs such as drug courts or Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE)/swift, certain, fair (SCF) interventions as opposed to general probation and parole supervision. Often these programs focus on specific target populations and/or involve other interventions, thus making generalizations to broader community supervision populations somewhat tenuous. Second, the body of literature on sanction use is more plentiful and developed than the literature on incentives. As a result, the themes discussed below are more heavily influenced by what we know regarding the efficacy of sanctions as opposed to incentives.
Theme 1: The Literature on Sanction Use Is Mixed but Trending Toward Ineffective
There are two primary strands of research that provide insight into the efficacy of sanctions with community supervision populations. One strand, which has received substantial attention recently, focuses on sanctions implemented under the SCF framework. Modeled after Judge Alm’s well-known Hawaii HOPE program, SCF supervision programs generally seek to induce compliance through the consistent imposition of sanctions, most commonly short jail stays, for violating supervision conditions (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). The proliferation of SCF programs over the last decade can be attributed in large part to a 2009 evaluation of the HOPE program which showed positive outcomes, including fewer positive and missed drug tests, lower revocation rates, and fewer arrests (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). Since this initial evaluation, multiple studies have been conducted on replication programs, which have sprung up across the country. While some have found support for SCF sanctioning programs (Grommon et al., 2012; Hamilton et al., 2016), others have concluded that SCF practices are either ineffective or lead to unintended negative outcomes such as increased revocation and conviction rates (Lattimore et al., 2016; O’Connell et al., 2016). A recent meta-analysis completed by Pattavina and associates (2024) that comprised 18 studies ultimately concluded that “HOPE/SCF programs have minimal effects on recidivism.” In sum, the once optimistic view on the efficacy of SCF sanctioning programs has softened considerably in the wake of empirical research finding little support for the efficacy of the programs.
A second strand of research on the efficacy of sanctions comes from the more general research focusing on sanction use in community supervision outside the SCF model. Here again the research is mixed but trending toward ineffective, especially when used as a standalone intervention. A recent study by Romain Dagenhardt and colleagues (2023), for example, found that jail sanctions used as a response to technical violations in a domestic violence court setting had no effect on recidivism rates and actually resulted in a shorter time to recidivism when compared with those who only received verbal reprimands. Similarly, research conducted by Mowen et al. (2018) found that sanctions and verbal reprimands were associated with increased levels of substance use and criminal activity. Again, not all research on sanction effectiveness produce null findings. The aforementioned study by Breno and colleagues (2023) found that sanction use was associated with improved short-term outcomes among probation and parole clients in the state of North Carolina. In addition, a study by Wodahl et al. (2011) examined the use of sanctions and incentives among individuals supervised on an intensive supervision program in Wyoming. Results indicated that sanctions, when used in concert with incentives, led to higher rates of program success. However, when taken together, the evidence suggests that sanctions, whether utilized as part of an SCF program or used in conjunction with more traditional supervision settings, are lacking consistent empirical support.
Theme 2: The Literature on Incentive Use Is Mixed but Trending Toward Effective
As previously mentioned, the literature on the value of incentives in community supervision is less developed than the literature on sanction use. With this in mind, there is growing evidence to support the use of incentives as a tool to improve supervision outcomes (Breno et al., 2023; Mowen et al., 2018; Mueller, 2022; Wodahl et al., 2011). For example, Mowen and colleagues’ (2018) analyses of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative data found that officer use of incentives, namely verbal praise, was associated with lower levels of criminal offending and substance use. Similarly, Carroll et al. (2006) found using monetary vouchers among a sample of marijuana-dependent probationers in a treatment setting was associated with a lower frequency of positive drug tests and increased treatment engagement.
Not all research on incentive use has shown positive outcomes. One strand of research, for example, has explored the value of adding monetary incentives as a supplement to traditional drug court reward structures (e.g., praise from the judge, level advancement, and decreased reporting requirements) as a means to enhance abstinence and treatment attendance (Hall et al., 2009; Marlowe et al., 2008; Prendergast et al., 2008). These studies found no evidence that the addition of monetary incentives significantly improved outcomes. However, it should be emphasized that this research specifically examined whether the addition of monetary payments enhanced already existing drug court reward systems as opposed to the overall efficacy of incentives. The effect of monetary incentives alone on outcomes remains untested.
***
Theme 4: The Importance of Study Design
A final theme in the research on the influence of sanction and incentive use on supervision outcomes relates to the variation in findings across study designs. Succinctly stated, studies using higher quality designs, especially those that employ randomized controlled trials (RCTs), are more likely to reveal null findings compared with studies that used quasi-experimental designs. This theme was highly evident in the aforementioned meta-analysis on HOPE/SCF sanctioning programs, which revealed that studies which utilized RCT designs revealed no evidence to support the efficacy of sanctions in community supervision settings (Pattavina et al., 2024). A similar pattern is also observed in the incentive literature with RCT studies more likely to reveal null findings (Hall et al., 2009; Marlowe et al., 2008; Prendergast et al., 2008).
***
In contrast to sanctions, study findings revealed strong support for incentives. More specifically, clients who received incentives on a more consistent basis were more likely to successfully complete probation and less likely to engage in new criminal activity. It should also be emphasized that the impact of incentive use was not extinguished by the inclusion of our measure for client behavior (average noncompliance), which increases our confidence that the observed relationship between incentive use and our dependent variables is not the artifact of a mis-specified model.
The policy implications from these findings are clear. Community corrections agencies should prioritize efforts to integrate incentive use into everyday supervision practices. Furthermore, our results suggest a need to increase federal funding to support the research and development of incentive programs to guide agencies in creating and sustaining programs that will have the greatest impact. As recent research has called into question the ongoing allocation of federal dollars being invested into SCF sanctioning systems (Pattavina et al., 2024), we advocate for a shifting of these dollars into research and development of incentive-based programs that appear to have a greater capacity to improve both long- and short-term outcomes.
***
Conclusion
The current study sought to enhance our understanding of the role of sanctions and incentives in promoting successful supervision outcomes. While results found no support for the use of sanctions in improving outcomes across any of our dependent variables, strong evidence emerged for the use of incentives in both decreasing criminal reoffending and avoiding revocation. In addition, the influence of incentives on absconding behavior, while not significant, was trending in the right direction. The veracity of these findings is strengthened by the inclusion of a measure of client behavior (average noncompliance), which enhances our confidence that the observed relationship between incentive use and supervision outcomes is meaningful and not the sole consequence of model misspecification. Considering these findings within the broader literature on sanctions and incentives in community supervision raises questions about the ongoing allocation of public funds to support sanction-focused programs, such as SCF sanctioning programs. Incentive-based programs, on the other hand, seem to have a much more stable empirical foothold and are deserving of additional attention and resources, which includes resources to support a more systematic research agenda to continue to evaluate the role incentives can have in supporting long-term behavioral change.
