{"id":"AIBD-0726","title":"CrimeSolutions finds that Philadelphia probationers forecast as low risk by a random forests model did no worse in caseloads of about 400","summary":"In a 2007-08 Philadelphia trial rated Promising by CrimeSolutions, people whom a random forests model forecast as low risk were supervised in caseloads of about 400 with no rise in reoffending.","date_observed":"2008-01-01","date_basis":"event","date_precision":"year","benefit_status":"reported","source_collection":null,"source_entry":null,"account":"Philadelphia's Adult Probation and Parole Department used a modified random forests model to forecast which supervised people were unlikely to be charged with a serious crime within two years. The original model, by Berk and colleagues, forecast homicide or attempted homicide among probationers and parolees. In 2007 and 2008, 1,559 people forecast as low risk in two city regions were randomly assigned to low-intensity or standard supervision. In the low-intensity group, each probation officer carried a caseload of about 400 people, with an office visit and a phone report once every six months. Contacts with probation officers fell by about 45 percent. Barnes and colleagues found no statistically significant differences in rearrest, time to rearrest, reincarceration, frequency or seriousness of offending. CrimeSolutions, the rating service of the National Institute of Justice, rated the program Promising in a profile posted on 15 June 2011. The trial varied supervision among people whom the model had selected. It did not test the model against another way of choosing them. Four of the trial's six authors also wrote the 2009 paper on the model.","category":"aggregate result","unexpected":false,"purpose":"Richard Berk and colleagues built a random forests model to forecast homicide or attempted homicide among people on probation and parole. A modified version forecast which people would not be charged with a serious crime within two years.","system":"Random forests risk forecasting model (modified from Berk et al. 2009)","model_version":null,"developer":"Richard Berk and colleagues (Berk et al. 2009), with the Philadelphia Adult Probation and Parole Department","deployer":"Philadelphia Adult Probation and Parole Department, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania","location":"Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States (western and northeastern regions)","domain":"Criminal justice (probation and parole)","segment":null,"benefit_type":"Improved Organizational Efficiency","work_activities":["4.A.2.a.1","4.A.2.b.6"],"taxonomy_note":null,"registry_ids":{},"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"Two probation officers each supervised about 400 people forecast as low risk with about 45 percent fewer contacts and no measured rise in reoffending."},{"group":"personal","depth":1,"reason":"People in the low-intensity caseloads reported in person once every six months, with no measured rise in rearrest."}],"ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The trial randomized supervision levels among people whom the model had already forecast as low risk. It did not compare the model's selections with another way of choosing whom to supervise lightly."},"evidence":[{"kind":"assessment report","citation":"CrimeSolutions, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Program Profile: Philadelphia (Pa.) Low-Intensity Community Supervision Experiment. Rated Promising. Posted 15 June 2011.","title":"Program Profile: Philadelphia (Pa.) Low-Intensity Community Supervision Experiment","url":"https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/philadelphia-pa-low-intensity-community-supervision-experiment","date":"2011-06-15","written_by":"independent","quote":"The program is rated Promising. There were no statistically significant effects between groups on rearrest, time to rearrest, reincarceration, frequency of offending, or seriousness of offending."}],"replication":{"produced_by":["The model forecast risk from each person's prior record and other data at the start of supervision.","Cases were eligible only when more than half of the model's votes forecast no serious offense."],"must_hold":["People return to standard supervision after a new arrest or six months without contact.","Recent two-year outcomes of people under the department's supervision are available to base the forecasts on."],"echoes":[]},"paired_incident":null,"headline":"A risk model lets Philadelphia supervise low-risk probationers lightly","metric":"a caseload of about 400 people","comparator":{"against":"Standard regional supervision of people forecast as low risk","before":"Almost the same contact as in the previous year","after":"Contacts reduced by about 45 percent","basis":"measured","quote":"Once the experiment began, the number of contacts with probation officers experienced by the experimental group was reduced by about 45 percent, while the control group had almost the exact same amount of contact as they had encountered during the previous year.","url":"https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/philadelphia-pa-low-intensity-community-supervision-experiment"},"later":null,"value":null,"developer_country":"United States","deployer_country":"United States","unrated_because":null,"brief_notes":null,"brief":null,"revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of CrimeSolutions.","source":"https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/philadelphia-pa-low-intensity-community-supervision-experiment","editor":"AIBD"}],"confidence":"found","shade":"high","claim_status":"Found by an assessment body","claim_basis":"Sources: one independent assessment report. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","case_jurisdictions":["United States"],"profile":{"case_id":"AIBD-0726","catalog_version":"1.0.0","source_fingerprint":"7f33e6f243f3552a85411dac072d113f65d325a1883d83d5b9b01ae9ae2747e8","collection_refs":[{"collection_id":"aibd","version":"2026-10-31"},{"collection_id":"querist","version":"2026-10-25"}],"source_ids":["AIBD-0726-source-0001"],"families":{"strategic assessments":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"evaluations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"monetary observations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"institutional decisions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]}},"fields":{"actors[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"developer":"Richard Berk and colleagues (Berk et al. 2009), with the Philadelphia Adult Probation and Parole Department","deployer":"Philadelphia Adult Probation and Parole Department, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["developer","deployer"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"actors[].ownership_control":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_contribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"category":"aggregate result","ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The trial randomized supervision levels among people whom the model had already forecast as low risk. It did not compare the model's selections with another way of choosing whom to supervise lightly."}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ai_role","category"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].alternatives":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].assessor_date":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].depth":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"Two probation officers each supervised about 400 people forecast as low risk with about 45 percent fewer contacts and no measured rise in reoffending."},{"group":"personal","depth":1,"reason":"People in the low-intensity caseloads reported in person once every six months, with no measured rise in rearrest."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].display_confidence":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"confidence":"high","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by an assessment body","basis":"Sources: one independent assessment report. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","interpretation":"Existing display rule preserved; the richer outcome-specific confidence question still needs review."}},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rationale":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"Two probation officers each supervised about 400 people forecast as low risk with about 45 percent fewer contacts and no measured rise in reoffending."},{"group":"personal","depth":1,"reason":"People in the low-intensity caseloads reported in person once every six months, with no measured rise in rearrest."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rubric_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].status_basis":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].target":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"Two probation officers each supervised about 400 people forecast as low risk with about 45 percent fewer contacts and no measured rise in reoffending."},{"group":"personal","depth":1,"reason":"People in the low-intensity caseloads reported in person once every six months, with no measured rise in rearrest."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"availability":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"brief":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_kind":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_links[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_links":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_strength":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"answer":"Found by an assessment body. Sources: one independent assessment report. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by an assessment body"}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0726-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"Found by an assessment body. Sources: one independent assessment report. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","inferred":false}},"claims[].missingness":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].proposition":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"cross_border_flows[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"decisions[].action_outcome":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].grounds":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].institution_task":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].success_criterion":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"deployment_stage":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"classification":"pilot","answer":"The system was used in a pilot. The department tested low-intensity supervision in a randomized trial in two regions of Philadelphia in 2007 and 2008.","scope":"The period and activity described in the case."}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0726-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"The system was used in a pilot. The department tested low-intensity supervision in a randomized trial in two regions of Philadelphia in 2007 and 2008.","inferred":false}},"economics[].amount":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].costs[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].counterfactual":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].currency_price_basis":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].gross_net":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].measure_type":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].period_unit":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].realization":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].recipient_payer":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].return_payback":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].valuation_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"evaluations[].ai_uplift":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].comparator":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].design":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].effect":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].exposure":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].id":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].measurement_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].metric":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].reproduction_materials":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].setting_sample":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].uncertainty_limitations":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"external_references[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"follow_up[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"human_oversight":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"id":"AIBD-0726"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["id"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"infrastructure_dependencies[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiaries":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiary_count":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].benefit_type":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_type":"Improved Organizational Efficiency"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_type"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].claim":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"Philadelphia's Adult Probation and Parole Department used a modified random forests model to forecast which supervised people were unlikely to be charged with a serious crime within two years. The original model, by Berk and colleagues, forecast homicide or attempted homicide among probationers and parolees. In 2007 and 2008, 1,559 people forecast as low risk in two city regions were randomly assigned to low-intensity or standard supervision. In the low-intensity group, each probation officer carried a caseload of about 400 people, with an office visit and a phone report once every six months. Contacts with probation officers fell by about 45 percent. Barnes and colleagues found no statistically significant differences in rearrest, time to rearrest, reincarceration, frequency or seriousness of offending. CrimeSolutions, the rating service of the National Institute of Justice, rated the program Promising in a profile posted on 15 June 2011. The trial varied supervision among people whom the model had selected. It did not test the model against another way of choosing them. Four of the trial's six authors also wrote the 2009 paper on the model.","benefit_type":"Improved Organizational Efficiency"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","benefit_type"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].distribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].duration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].id":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].stakeholder_group":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"Two probation officers each supervised about 400 people forecast as low risk with about 45 percent fewer contacts and no measured rise in reoffending."},{"group":"personal","depth":1,"reason":"People in the low-intensity caseloads reported in person once every six months, with no measured rise in rearrest."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].status":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_status":"reported"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_status"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].tradeoffs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].unexpected":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"unexpected":false,"purpose":"Richard Berk and colleagues built a random forests model to forecast homicide or attempted homicide among people on probation and parole. A modified version forecast which people would not be charged with a serious crime within two years."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["unexpected","purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"places[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"location":"Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States (western and northeastern regions)","developer_country":"United States","deployer_country":"United States"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["location","developer_country","deployer_country"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"purpose":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"purpose":"Richard Berk and colleagues built a random forests model to forecast homicide or attempted homicide among people on probation and parole. A modified version forecast which people would not be charged with a serious crime within two years."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"record_dates":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"date_observed":"2008-01-01","date_basis":"event","date_precision":"year","revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of CrimeSolutions.","source":"https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/philadelphia-pa-low-intensity-community-supervision-experiment","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["date_observed","date_basis","date_precision","revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"replication.attempts[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"replication.conditions":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"replication":{"produced_by":["The model forecast risk from each person's prior record and other data at the start of supervision.","Cases were eligible only when more than half of the model's votes forecast no serious offense."],"must_hold":["People return to standard supervision after a new arrest or six months without contact.","Recent two-year outcomes of people under the department's supervision are available to base the forecasts on."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"revision_history[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of CrimeSolutions.","source":"https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/philadelphia-pa-low-intensity-community-supervision-experiment","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sector":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"domain":"Criminal justice (probation and parole)"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["domain"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].access_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].citation_locator":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"assessment report","citation":"CrimeSolutions, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Program Profile: Philadelphia (Pa.) Low-Intensity Community Supervision Experiment. Rated Promising. Posted 15 June 2011.","title":"Program Profile: Philadelphia (Pa.) Low-Intensity Community Supervision Experiment","url":"https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/philadelphia-pa-low-intensity-community-supervision-experiment","date":"2011-06-15","written_by":"independent","quote":"The program is rated Promising. There were no statistically significant effects between groups on rearrest, time to rearrest, reincarceration, frequency of offending, or seriousness of offending."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["AIBD-0726-source-0001"],"role":"Existing evidence items, in their original order"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"sources[].language":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"assessment report","citation":"CrimeSolutions, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Program Profile: Philadelphia (Pa.) Low-Intensity Community Supervision Experiment. Rated Promising. Posted 15 June 2011.","title":"Program Profile: Philadelphia (Pa.) Low-Intensity Community Supervision Experiment","url":"https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/philadelphia-pa-low-intensity-community-supervision-experiment","date":"2011-06-15","written_by":"independent","quote":"The program is rated Promising. There were no statistically significant effects between groups on rearrest, time to rearrest, reincarceration, frequency of offending, or seriousness of offending."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].upstream_sources":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"strategic_assessments[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"strategic assessments"},"summary":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"summary":"In a 2007-08 Philadelphia trial rated Promising by CrimeSolutions, people whom a random forests model forecast as low risk were supervised in caseloads of about 400 with no rise in reoffending.","account":"Philadelphia's Adult Probation and Parole Department used a modified random forests model to forecast which supervised people were unlikely to be charged with a serious crime within two years. The original model, by Berk and colleagues, forecast homicide or attempted homicide among probationers and parolees. In 2007 and 2008, 1,559 people forecast as low risk in two city regions were randomly assigned to low-intensity or standard supervision. In the low-intensity group, each probation officer carried a caseload of about 400 people, with an office visit and a phone report once every six months. Contacts with probation officers fell by about 45 percent. Barnes and colleagues found no statistically significant differences in rearrest, time to rearrest, reincarceration, frequency or seriousness of offending. CrimeSolutions, the rating service of the National Institute of Justice, rated the program Promising in a profile posted on 15 June 2011. The trial varied supervision among people whom the model had selected. It did not test the model against another way of choosing them. Four of the trial's six authors also wrote the 2009 paper on the model."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["summary","account"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].autonomy_permissions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].component_role":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].deployment_configuration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].inputs_outputs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_name":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].product_name":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"system":"Random forests risk forecasting model (modified from Berk et al. 2009)"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["system"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].provider":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"taxonomy_crosswalks[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"title":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"title":"CrimeSolutions finds that Philadelphia probationers forecast as low risk by a random forests model did no worse in caseloads of about 400","headline":"A risk model lets Philadelphia supervise low-risk probationers lightly"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["title","headline"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"version":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["db2523f0eb5a243344d179188e4ff7cefa37e9532283f6c147b9297584d4ef26"],"role":"SHA-256 of the complete public record and its assessments"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"SHA-256 of the public record, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"workflow":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"Philadelphia's Adult Probation and Parole Department used a modified random forests model to forecast which supervised people were unlikely to be charged with a serious crime within two years. The original model, by Berk and colleagues, forecast homicide or attempted homicide among probationers and parolees. In 2007 and 2008, 1,559 people forecast as low risk in two city regions were randomly assigned to low-intensity or standard supervision. In the low-intensity group, each probation officer carried a caseload of about 400 people, with an office visit and a phone report once every six months. Contacts with probation officers fell by about 45 percent. Barnes and colleagues found no statistically significant differences in rearrest, time to rearrest, reincarceration, frequency or seriousness of offending. CrimeSolutions, the rating service of the National Institute of Justice, rated the program Promising in a profile posted on 15 June 2011. The trial varied supervision among people whom the model had selected. It did not test the model against another way of choosing them. Four of the trial's six authors also wrote the 2009 paper on the model.","replication":{"produced_by":["The model forecast risk from each person's prior record and other data at the start of supervision.","Cases were eligible only when more than half of the model's votes forecast no serious offense."],"must_hold":["People return to standard supervision after a new arrest or six months without contact.","Recent two-year outcomes of people under the department's supervision are available to base the forecasts on."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"}},"summary":{"total":91,"addressed":91,"known":28,"reviewed":2,"reviewed_complete":2,"reviewed_partial":0,"record_mapped":26,"review_not_assessed":63,"not_assessed":0,"complete":false,"by_state":{"value_present":28,"not_reported":0,"unresolved":63,"not_assessed":0,"not_applicable":0,"withheld":0,"source_unavailable":0}}},"presentation_version":"f831bdf233099c4735d9cbbd1eb82ed0a5f0f1b1a9ed8c8d9a5bad4d03b51e70"}