The available evidence suggests that intensive supervision probation (ISP) programs do not achieve their stated goals of substantially reducing prison crowding, saving public monies, or reducing recidivism. Many probation officers and departments support ISP enthusiastically, however, and its more punitive features are strictly enforced in many jurisdictions. The proliferation of ISP in the United States in the last decade appears to have had less to do with its stated goals than with its effectiveness at achieving latent bureaucratic, organizational, political, professional, and psychological goals of probation departments and officers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Association of the Bar of the City of New York
. 1986. New York State Probation's Intensive Supervision Program: A Reform in Need of Reform. Unpublished manuscript.
2.
Banks, J.
, A. L. Porter, R. L. Rardin, T. R. Siler, and V. E. Unger. 1977. Phase I Evaluation of Intensive Special Probation Projects. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
3.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
. 1984. The 1983 Jail Census. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
. 1988. Probation and Parole. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
5.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
. 1989. Prisoners in 1988. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
6.
Byrne, J. M.1986. “The Control Controversy: A Preliminary Examination of Intensive Probation Supervision Programs in the United States.”Federal Probation50:4-16.
7.
Byrne, J. M.
and L. Kelly. 1988. Restructuing Probation as an Intermediate Sanction. Report to the National Institute of Justice. Lowell, MA: University of Lowell, Department of Criminal Justice.
8.
Clear, T. 1988. Personal communication with author.
9.
Clear, T.S. Flynn
, and C. Shapiro. 1987. “Intensive Supervision in Probation: A Comparison of Three Projects.” In Intermediate Punishments: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement and Electronic Surveillance, edited by B. R. McCarthy. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
10.
Duffie, H. C.1987. “Probation: The Best-Kept Secret Around.”Corrections Today (August): 122-126.
11.
Erwin, B. S.1986. “Turning Up the Heat on Probationers in Georgia.”Federal Probation50:17-24.
12.
Erwin, B. S.
1987. Final Evaluation Report: Intensive Probation Supervision in Georgia. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Corrections.
13.
Erwin, B. S. 1988. Personal communication with author.
14.
Erwin, B. S.
and L. A. Bennett. (January) 1987. “New Dimensions in Probation: Georgia's Experience with Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS).”Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
15.
Fallen, D. L.
, C. Apperson, J. Hall-Milligan, and S. Aos. 1981. Intensive Parole Supervision. Olympia, WA: Department of Social and Health Services, Analysis and Information Services Division, Office of Research.
16.
Fields, C. B. 1984. The Intensive Supervision Probation Program in Texas: A Two-year Assessment. Doctoral dissertation. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University, College of Criminal Justice.
17.
Hofer, P. S.
and B. S. Meierhoefer. 1987. Home Confinement: An Evolving Sanction in the Federal Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
18.
Latessa, E. J. 1979. Intensive Probation: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of an Intensive Diversion Unit. Doctoral dissertation. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University, College of Criminal Justice.
19.
Latessa, E. J.
1987. “Intensive Supervision: An Eight Year Follow-up Evaluation.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, St. Louis, March.
20.
Lurigio, A.1987. “Evaluating Intensive Probation Supervision: The Cook County Experience.”Perspectives: 17-19.
21.
Noonan, S.
and E. J. Latessa. 1987. “An Evaluation of an Intensive Supervision Program.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, St. Louis, March.
22.
Pearson, F. S.
1987. Research on New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
23.
Pearson, F. S.1988. “Evaluation of New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Probation Program.”Crime and Delinquency34:437-448.
24.
Petersilia, J.
1987. Expanding Options for Criminal Sentencing. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
25.
Petersilia, J.
and S. Turner. 1986. Prison versus Probation in California: Implications for Crime and Offender Recidivism. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
26.
Prosecuting Attorneys' Research Council
. 1988. The Prosecutor's Role in Sentencing Reforms. New York: Author.
27.
Thomson, D. R.
1987 Intensive Probation Supervision in Illinois. Unpublished manuscript.
28.
Tonry, M.
and R. Will. 1988. Intermediate Sanctions. Washington, DC: Preliminary report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
29.
Wallerstedt, J. F.
1984. Returning to Prison. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
