A Dual Experiment in Intensive Community Supervision: Minnesota's Prison Diversion and Enhanced Supervised Release Programs

Abstract

In 1990, Minnesota enacted legislation to implement an intensive community supervision program as an alternative both to prison and to routine parole. The National Institute of Justice funded RAND to evaluate the program. This article reports on two randomized field experiments designed to measure the implementation and impact of the programs. Detailed information on offender background, services received, and 1-year outcomes was collected for 300 participants. Results showed that the programs were fairly well implemented. Two-year follow-up results indicated that prison-diversion offenders under intensive community supervision posed no greater risk to public safety than those initially sentenced to prison. The prison-diversion program resulted in savings of about $5,000 per offender per year, but these savings were offset by the greater cost of intensive supervision for parolees.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baird, S. C. , & Wagner, D. (1990). Measuring diversion: The Florida Community Control Program. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 112-125.

Banks, J. , Porter, A. L. , Rardin, R. L. , Silver, T. R. , & Unger, V. E. (1977). Summary Phase I evaluation of intensive special probation project. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.

Byrne, J. M. , Lurigio, A. J. , & Baird, C. (1989). The effectiveness of the new intensive supervision programs. Research in Corrections, 2(2), 1-56.

Clear, T. R. , Flynn, S. , & Shapiro, C. (1987). Intensive supervision in probation: A comparison of three projects. In B. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate punishments: Intensive supervision, home confinement, and electronic surveillance (pp. 31-51). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Deschenes, E. P. , Turner, S. , & Petersilia, J. (1995). Intensive community supervision in Minnesota: A dual experiment in prison diversion and enhanced supervised release (DRU-777-NIJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Erwin, B. S. (1986). Turning up the heat on probationers in Georgia. Federal Probation, 50(2), 17-24.

Erwin, B. S. (1987). Evaluation of intensive probation supervision in Georgia. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections.

Erwin, B. S. , & Bennett, L. A. (1987, January). New dimensions in probation: Georgia's experience with intensive supervision probation (IPS) (Research in Brief). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Garner, T. , & Visher, C. A. (1988). Policy experiments come of age (NIJ Reports, 211). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

10.

Pearson, F. S. (1988). Evaluation of New Jersey's intensive supervision program. Crime & Delinquency, 34(4), 437-448.

11.

Pearson, F. S. , & Harper, A. G. (1990). Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey's intensive supervision program. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 75-86.

12.

Petersilia, J. (1987). Expanding options for criminal sentencing (R-3544-EMC). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

13.

Petersilia, J. , & Turner, S. , with J. Peterson . (1986). Prison versus probation in California: Implications for crime and offender recidivism (R-3323-NIJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

14.

Petersilia, J. , & Turner, S. (1990a). Diverting prisoners to intensive probation: Results of an experiment in Oregon (N-3186-NIJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

15.

Petersilia, J. , & Turner, S. (1990b). Intensive supervision for high-risk probationers (R-3936-NIJ/BJA). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

16.

Petersilia, J. , & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 17, pp. 281-335). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Tonry, M. , & Will, R. (1988). Intermediate sanctions (Preliminary report to the National Institute of Justice). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

18.

Turner, S. , & Petersilia, J. (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.

19.

U.S. General Accounting Office . (1990). Intermediate sanctions: Their impacts on prison crowding, costs, and recidivism are still unclear. Washington, DC: Author.

20.

U.S. General Accounting Office . (1993). Intensive probation supervision: Cost-savings relative to incarceration (GAO/PEMD-93-22). Washington, DC: Author.