An Experimental Evaluation of the Impact of Intensive Supervision on the Recidivism of High-Risk Probationers

Abstract

This article reports the results of an experimental evaluation of the impact of Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) on probationer recidivism. Participants, who were assessed at an increased likelihood of committing serious crimes and not ordered to specialized supervision, were randomly assigned to ISP (n = 447) or standard probation (n = 385). ISP probationers received more restrictive supervision and experienced more office contacts, home visitations, and drug screenings. After 12 months, there was no difference in offending. This equivalence holds across multiple types of crimes, including violent, non-violent, property, and drug offenses, as well as in a survival analysis conducted for each offense type. ISP probationers absconded from supervision, were charged with technical violations, and were incarcerated at significantly higher rates. Policy implications for these results are discussed.

Keywords

community corrections punishment intensive probation randomized trial recidivism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adult Probation and Parole Department. (2012a). Adult Probation and Parole Department Internal Report. Philadelphia: First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division.

Adult Probation and Parole Department. (2012b). 2011 Adult Probation and Parole Department Annual Report. Philadelphia: First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division.

Adult Probation and Parole Department. (2014). Adult Probation and Parole Department Internal Population Report. Philadelphia: First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Wormith

J. S.

(2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.

Aos

Miller

Drake

, & Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2007). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates (Oct. 2006). Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19, 275-290.

Austin

(2010). Criminal justice trends: Key legislative changes in sentencing policy, 2001-2010. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

Barnes

G. C.

Ahlman

Gill

Sherman

L. W.

Kurtz

Malvestuto

(2010). Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 159-189.

Barnes

G. C.

Hyatt

(2012). Classifying adult probationers by Forecasting Future Offending. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Barnes

G. C.

Hyatt

J. M.

Ahlman

L. C.

Kent

D. T. L.

(2012). The effects of low-intensity supervision for lower-risk probationers: Updated results from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Crime & Justice, 35, 200-220.

10.

Berk

R. A.

(2008). Forecasting methods in crime and justice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 219-238.

11.

Berk

R. A.

(2012). Criminal justice forecasts of risk: A machine learning approach. New York, NY: Springer.

12.

Berk

R. A.

Hickman

L. J.

(2005). Statistical difficulties in determining the role of race in capital cases: A re-analysis of data from the state of Maryland. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 365-390.

13.

Beto

Corbett

Hinzman

(1999). Embracing key strategies for a rational probation system. In Council

T. R. P.

(Ed.), Transforming probation through leadership: The “broken windows” model (pp. 3-6). New York, NY: Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.

14.

Blumstein

Cohen

(1979). Estimation of individual crime rates from arrest records. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70, 561-585.

15.

Bogue

Campbell

Carey

Clawson

Faust

Florio

… Woodward

(2004). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: The principles of effective intervention. National Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC.

16.

Breiman

(2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5-32.

17.

Campbell

D. T.

(1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297-312.

18.

Clear

T. R.

Reisig

M. D.

Cole

G. F.

(2013). American corrections. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

19.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Cohen

R. L.

(1995). Probation and parole violators in state prison. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

21.

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. (2010). CONSORT: Flow diagram. Retrieved from http://www.consort-statement.org/download/Media/Default/Downloads/CONSORT%202010%20Flow%20Diagram.doc

22.

Crouch

B. M.

(1993). Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10, 67-88.

23.

Cullen

F. T.

Wright

J. P.

Applegate

B. K.

(1996). Control in the community: The limits of reform. In Harland

A. T.

(Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 69-116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Dorf

M. C.

Fagan

J. A.

(2003). Problem-solving courts: From innovation to institutionalization. American Criminal Law Review, 40, 1501-1511.

25.

Dowden

Andrews

D. A.

(2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449-467.

26.

Drake

E. K.

Aos

Miller

M. G.

(2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims & Offenders, 4, 170-196.

27.

Erwin

(1986). Turning up the heat on probationers in Georgia. Federal Probation, 50(109), 17-24.

28.

Farrington

D. P.

(1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. Crime and Justice, 4, 257-308.

29.

Farrington

D. P.

Welsh

B. C.

(2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 9-38.

30.

Gendreau

P. A.

Goggin

Cullin

Andrews

(2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 12, 10-13.

31.

Gendreau

P. A.

Paparozzi

M. A.

(2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445-466.

32.

Gifford

S. L.

(2002). Justice expenditures and employment in the United States, 1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

33.

Gill

C. E.

Hyatt

J. M.

(in press). Not just a numbers game: Is there hope for intensive supervision probation?

34.

Gottfredson

S. D.

Gottfredson

D. M.

(1985). Screening for risk among parolees: Policy, practice, and method. In Farrington

D. P.

Tarling

(Eds.), Prediction in criminology (pp. 54-78). New York: State University of New York Press.

35.

Grattet

Lin

Petersilia

(2011). Supervision regimes, risk, and official reactions to parolee deviance. Criminology, 49, 371-399.

36.

Gupta

(2011). Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2, 109-112.

37.

Hollis

Campbell

(1999). What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. British Journal of Medicine, 319, 670-674.

38.

Hyatt

J. M.

(2013). The impact of cognitive behavioral therapy on the recidivism of high risk offenders: Results from a randomized trial. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

39.

Jalbert

Rhodes

(2012). Reduced caseloads improve probation outcomes. Journal of Crime & Justice, 35, 221-238.

40.

Jalbert

Rhodes

Flygare

(2010). Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: Reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49, 233-253.

41.

King

(2009). A change of course: Developments in state sentencing policy and their implications for the federal system. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22, 48-52.

42.

Langan

Levin

(2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

43.

Latessa

E. J.

Lawrence

Fulton

Stichman

(1998). Evaluating the prototypical ISP program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

44.

Lin

(2012). Resisting “evidence” in challenging correctional environments. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 421-428.

45.

Lipsey

M. W.

Chapman

G. L.

Landenberger

N. A.

(2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 144-157.

46.

Lipsey

M. W.

Landenberger

N. A.

(2005). Cognitive-behavioral interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. In Walsh

B. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims, and places (pp. 57-71). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

47.

Lipsey

M. W.

Landenberger

N. A.

Wilson

S. J.

(2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Systematic Reviews.

48.

Lowencamp

C. T.

Flores

A. W.

Holsinger

A. M.

Makarious

M. D.

Latessa

E. J.

(2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 368-375.

49.

Lowencamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Smith

(2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575-594.

50.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457-471.

51.

Marlowe

D. B.

Kirby

K. C.

(1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2(1), 1-32.

52.

Maruschak

L. M.

Bonczar

T. P.

(2013). Probation and parole in the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

53.

Mayo-Wilson

Montgomery

Hopewell

Macdonald

Moher

Grant

(2013). Developing a reporting guideline for social and psychological intervention trials. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203, 250-254.

54.

McNeill

Farrall

Lightowler

Maruna

(2012). Reexamining evidence-based practice in community corrections: Beyond “a confined view” of what works. Justice Research and Policy, 14(1), 35-60.

55.

Nath

S. B.

Clement

D. E.

Sistrunk

(1976). Parole and probation caseload size variation: The Florida Intensive Supervision Project. Criminal Justice Review, 1, 61-71.

56.

Neithercutt

M. G.

(1987). Time to recidivism in probation/parole cohorts. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 3(2), 7-24.

57.

Pearson

F. S.

(1988). Evaluation of New Jersey’s Intensive Supervision Program. Crime & Delinquency, 34, 437-448.

58.

Perry

Weisburd

Hewitt

(2010). Are criminologists describing randomized controlled trials in ways that allow us to assess them? Findings from a sample of crime and justice trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 245-262.

59.

Peters

R. H.

Murrin

M. R.

(2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 72-96.

60.

Petersilia

(1987). Probation and felony offenders. Federal Probation, 51(2), 56-61.

61.

Petersilia

(1990). When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Federal Probation, 54(1), 23-27.

62.

Petersilia

(1999). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned? Justice Research and Policy, 1(1), 9-23.

63.

Petersilia

(2001). Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges. The Prison Journal, 81, 360-375.

64.

Petersilia

Turner

(1990a). Diverting prisoners to intensive probation: Results of an experiment in Oregon. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

65.

Petersilia

Turner

(1990b). Intensive supervision for high-risk probationers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

66.

Petersilia

Turner

(1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281-335.

67.

Pew Center on the States. (2009a). One in Thirty One: The long reach of American corrections. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

68.

Pew Center on the States. (2009b). 1 in 31: The long reach of American corrections, Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

69.

Pew Center on the States. (2010). Philadelphia’s crowded, costly jails: The search for safe solutions. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

70.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

Blevins

K. R.

Daigle

L. E.

Madensen

T. D.

(2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In Cullen

F. T.

Wright

J. P.

Blevins

K. R.

(Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 367-396). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

71.

Sampson

R. J.

(1986). Crime in cities: The effects of formal and informal social control. Crime and Justice, 8, 271-311.

72.

Sherman

L. W.

(1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York, NY: Free Press.

73.

Sherman

L. W.

(1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 445-473.

74.

Sherman

L. W.

(2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 6-19.

75.

Sherman

L. W.

Gottfredson

MacKenzie

Eck

Reuter

Bushway

(1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising—A report to the United States Congress. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

76.

Sherman

L. W.

Schmidt

J. D.

Rogan

D. P.

Smith

D. A.

(1992). The variable effects of arrest on criminal careers: The Milwaukee domestic violence experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83, 137-169.

77.

Smith

Gendreau

Swartz

(2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims & Offenders, 4, 148-169.

78.

Solomon

A. L.

Kachinowski

Bhati

(2005). Does parole work: Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

79.

Taxman

F. S.

(2002). Supervision: Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66(2), 14-27.

80.

Taxman

F. S.

Belenko

(2012). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. New York, NY: Springer.

81.

Taxman

F. S.

Thanner

Weisburd

(2006). Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 28-51.

82.

Thanner

Taxman

(2003). Responsivity: The value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 137-147.

83.

Tonry

(1999). Reconsidering indeterminate and structured sentencing: Issues for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

84.

Turner

Petersilia

(1992). Focusing on high-risk parolees: An experiment to reduce commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 29, 34-61.

85.

Turner

Petersilia

Deschenes

E. P.

(1992). Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 38, 539-556.

86.

Wang

Lagakos

S. W.

Ware

J. H.

Hunter

D. J.

Drazen

J. M.

(2007). Statistics in medicine—Reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 2189-2194.

87.

Weisburd

(2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review, 27, 336-354.

88.

White

T. F.

(2005). Re-engineering probation towards greater public safety: A framework for recidivism reduction through evidence-based practice. Court Support Services Division, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch. Hartford, CT.