Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole (ISP) for Drug Offenders

Abstract

This article reports results from a recently completed randomized field experiment testing the effects of intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug-involved offenders. The ISP demonstration project, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, included five jurisdictions: Contra Costa, California; Seattle, Washington; Des Moines, Iowa; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Winchester, Virginia. Jurisdictions developed ISP programs tailored to their own contexts, using the general ISP model developed by Georgia and New Jersey in the early 1980s. Results show that ISP offenders were seen more often, submitted more often to drug testing, received more drug counseling, and had higher levels of employment than their counterparts on routine probation/parole supervision. With respect to 1-year recidivism outcomes, a higher proportion of ISP offenders had technical violations (primarily for drug use), but there was no difference between the two study groups in new criminal arrests. At the end of the 1-year follow-up, more ISP offenders had been placed in jail or prison (mostly for technical violations). This policy drove up system costs, which for ISP averaged just under $8,000 per year per offender versus about $5,500 per year per offender for routine supervision. The article concludes with a discussion of how these results can be used to inform future ISP research and policy discussions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anglin, M. Douglas . 1988. “The Efficacy of Civil Commitment in Treating Narcotic Addiction.” In Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice (National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 86), edited by C. G. Leukefeld and F. M. Tims . Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Anglin, M. Douglas and Y. I. Hser . 1990. “Treatment of Drug Abuse.” Pp. 393-460 in Drugs and Crime, Vol. 13, edited by M. Tonry and J. Q. Wilson . Chicago: Chicago Press.

Austin, J. , B. Krisberg , and K. Joe . 1987. The Impact of Juvenile Court Intervention (monograph). San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Buck, Gerald . 1989. “Effectiveness of the New Intensive Supervision Programs.” Research in Corrections, 2:64-75.

Byrne, James M. and Linda Kelly . Unpublished. “An Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Program.”

Byrne, James , Arthur J. Lurigio , and Christopher Baird . 1989. “The Effectiveness of the New Intensive Supervision Programs.” Research in Corrections 2:1-48.

Chaiken, Jan and Marcia Chaiken . 1982. Varieties of Criminal Behavior (R-2814-NIJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Clear, Todd and Patricia L. Hardyman . 1990. “The New Intensive Supervision Movement.” Crime & Delinquency 36:42-60.

Cook, L. F. , B. Weinman , et al. 1988. “Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime.” In Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice (National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 86), edited by C. G. Leukefeld and F. M. Tims . Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

10.

Erwin, Billie S. 1987. Evaluation of Intensive Probation Supervision in Georgia. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections.

11.

Gendreau, Paul and Robert Ross . 1987. “Effective Correctional Treatment, Bibliotherapy for Cynics.” Justice Quarterly 4:463-489.

12.

General Accounting Office . 1990. Intermediate Sanctions: Their Impacts on Prison Crowding, Costs, and Recidivism Are Still Unclear (GAO/PEMD-90-21). Gaithersburg, MD: Author.

13.

Gerstein, D. R. and H. J. Harwood , eds. 1990. Treating Drug Problems, Vol. 1, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

14.

Haynes, Peter and C. Larsen . 1984. “Financial Consequences of Incarceration and Alternatives.” Crime & Delinquency 30:529-550.

15.

Langan, Patrick A. and Mark A. Cunniff . 1992. Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-89. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

16.

National Institute of Justice . 1991. “Drug Use Forecasting: Drugs and Crime Annual Report.” In Research in Action. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

17.

Nidorf, Barry . 1991. “ `Nothing Works' Revisited.” APPAPerspectives 15:12-13.

18.

Pearson, Frank S. 1988. “Evaluation of New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program.” Crime & Delinquency 34:347-448.

19.

Pearson, Frank S. 1992. Deterring Drug Use with Intensive Supervision. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

20.

Petersilia, Joan . 1987. Expanding Options for Criminal Sentencing (R-3544-EMC). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

21.

Petersilia, Joan and Susan Turner . 1990a. Intensive Supervision for High-Risk Probationers: Findings From Three California Experiments (R-3936-NIJ/BJA). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

22.

Petersilia, Joan and Susan Turner . 1990b. Diverting Prisoners to Intensive Probation: Results of an Experiment in Oregon (N-3186-NIJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

23.

Petersilia, Joan and Susan Turner . 1991. “An Evaluation of Intensive Probation in California.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82:610-658.

24.

Petersilia, Joan , Susan Turner , and Elizabeth P. Deschenes . 1992. “Intensive Supervision for Drug Offenders.” In Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by James M. Byrne , Arthur Lurigio , and Joan Petersilia . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

25.

Petersilia, Joan , Susan Turner , James Kahan , and Joyce Peterson . 1985. Granting Felons Probation: Public Risks and Alternatives (R-3186-NIJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

26.

Turner, Susan and Joan Petersilia . 1992. “Focusing on High-Risk Parolees: An Experiment to Reduce Commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29:34-61.

27.

Wish, Eric D. , M. Cuadrado , and J. Martorana . 1986. “Estimates of Drug Use in Intensive Supervision Probationers: Results From a Pilot Study.” Federal Probation 50:4-16.