In the face of severe institutional crowding across the United States, the 1980s has seen a revitalization of probation and parole through reliance on intensive supervision programs (ISPs). The ISPs of the 1980s are different from their predecessors of two decades earlier. Experiences with the new ISP movement identifies four areas of concern: stated goals may be difficult to achieve, confusion exists in the identification of appropriate target groups, supervision methods may be inappropriate to some clients, and the operating contexts are sometimes hostile to the ISP movement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, Don
. 1987. “Implications of Classification for Treatment of Juveniles.” Paper presented to the American Probation and Parole Association, Salt Lake City, August.
2.
Baird, Christopher S.
, Richard C. Heinz, and Brian Bemus. 1978. The Wisconsin Workload Deployment Project. Madison, WI: Bureau of Community Corrections.
3.
Banks, J.
, A. L. Porter, R. L. Rardin, R. R. Sider, and V.E. Unger. 1976. Evaluation of Intensive Special Probation Projects: Phase I Report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Barkdall, Walter L.1976. Probation: Call it Control - and Mean It. Federal Probation40:3-8.
5.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice
. 1988. Crime in the U.S.: Report to the Nation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
6.
Byrne, James
. Final Report of the Evaluation of Massachusetts Intensive Supervision. (draft).
7.
Byrne, James
. 1986. “The Control Controversy: A Preliminary Examination of Intensive Probation Supervision in the United States.”Federal Probation50:2-16.
8.
Carter, Robert
and Leslie T. Wilkins. 1984. “Caseloads: Some Conceptual Models.” In Probation, Parole and Community Corrections (2nd ed.), edited by Robert Carter and Leslie T. Wilkins. New York: Wiley.
9.
Clear, Todd R.
, Suzanne Flynn, and Carol Shapiro. 1987. “Intensive Supervision in Three Sites: A Comparison of Projects.” In Intermediate Punishments, edited by Belinda R. McCarthy. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
10.
Clear, Todd R.
, Suzanne Flynn, Carol Shapiro. Patricia M. Harris, and Albert O. Record. 1983. Managing the Costs of Incarceration. Prison JournalSpring: 1-92.
11.
Clear, Todd R.
, Suzanne Flynn, Carol Shapiro. Patricia M. Harris, Albert O. Record. and Carol Shapiro. 1986. “Selecting Offenders for Intensive Supervision in Probation: The Oregon Model. Federal Probation50(2):5045-5052.
12.
Clear, Todd R.
, Suzanne Flynn, Carol Shapiro. Patricia M. Harris, Albert O. Record. Carol Shapiro. Carol Shapiro, Suzanne Flynn and Ellen Chayet. 1988. The Probation Development Project: Successes, Failures and Question Marks. Newark, NJ: School of Criminal Justice. (mimeo)
13.
Erwin, Billie S.
1986. Final Report of the Georgia Intensive Probation Supervision Project. Atlanta: Department of Corrections.
14.
Gettinger, Steve
. 1983. “Intensive Supervision: Can It Rehabilitate Probation?”Correction Magazine9:6-17.
15.
Gottfredson, Don M.
, James O. Finckenauer, John J. Gibbs, and Carol Rauh. 1980. The Improved Correctional Field Services Project: Final Report. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice. (Mimeo)
16.
Gottfredson, Stephen D.
and Don M. Gottfredson. 1986. “Accuracy of Prediction Models.” In Criminal Careers and `Career Criminals,' Vol. II, edited by Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, Jeffrey Roth, and Christy A. Visher. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
17.
Kelman, Herbert C.1961. “Processes of Opinion Change.”Public Opinion Quarterly25:57-78.
18.
Lewin, Kurt
. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row.
19.
Markley, Greg
and Michael Eisenberg. 1986. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles Case Management System. Austin, TX: Board of Pardons and Paroles. (draft)
20.
Martinson, Robert
. 1975. “California Research at the Crossroads.”Journal of Research in Crime and Deliquency12:250-265.
21.
Monahan, John
. 1981. Predicting Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical Techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Neithercutt, Michael G.
and Don M. Gottfredson. 1974. Caseload Size Variation and Differences in Probation/Parole Performance. Washington, DC: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
23.
Nelson, Elmerk
and Nara B. Harlow. 1982. Managing Probation in an Era of Restraints. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
24.
New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts
. 1985. Intensive Supervision Program. Trenton, NJ: Author.
25.
New York State Comptroller General's Office
1988. Intensive Supervision Program Audit. Albany, NY: Author. (Report #87-5-10).
26.
Palmer, Ted
. 1975. “Martinson Revisted.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency12:133-152.
27.
Pearson, Frank
. 1988. Final Report of the Evaluation of New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for the Study of Crime and Deliquency.
28.
Petersilia, Joan
. 1985. Granting Felons Probation: Public Risks and Alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
29.
Petersilia, Joan
. 1989. Conditions for Implementing Successful Intensive Supervision Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
30.
Rich, William D.
, L. Paul Sutton, Todd R. Clear, and Michael J. Saks. 1982. Sentencing by Mathematics. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
31.
U.S. General Accounting Office
. 1976. State and County Probation Systems in Crisis. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32.
Warren, Marguerite Q.1973. “All Things Being Equal...”Criminal Law Bulletin9:438-508.
