Arrest and conviction

Length of follow-up Two years

Program effectiveness Some evidence of effect

Program Description

• The New Jersey ISP program represented one of the first large-scale attempts to reduce prison overcrowding through diversion of offenders from prison into the ISP program. This multiple-jurisdiction ISP targeted “typical” felons who had not been convicted of a violent offense.

• In order to obtain entry to the program, offenders had to have served at least two months of their prison sentence and had to meet criteria for selection into the program. The criteria for selection into the ISP was rigorous, requiring offenders to present a personal living plan detailing their goals and methods for adhering to the ISP regulations. Only approximately 18 percent of applicants were admitted to the ISP.

• The conditions of the New Jersey ISP were stringent. Offenders maintained a minimum of 30 contacts per month in the first six months of the program and an average of 20 contacts per month for the first 14 months of the program.

• The New Jersey program also required mandatory curfews, drug and alcohol testing,

compulsory treatment for individual needs, regular employment verification, payment of fines and restitution fees, community service, and electronic monitoring. In addition, all ISP

participants had community sponsors and other support persons to assist with program completion and monitor their progress.

• The intensity and strictness of supervision in the New Jersey ISP meant that a significant number of ISP participants were returned to prison for violations.

Study References

Pearson, F.S. 1987. “Final Report of Research on New Jersey’s Intensive Supervision Program.” Institute for Criminological Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Pearson, F.S. 1988. Evaluation of New Jersey’s Intensive Supervision Program. Crime and Delinquency, 34(4): 437-448.

Program Name: High-Risk Offender Intensive Supervision Project

Program Type: Intensive supervised probation/parole

Program Location/Dates: Madison, Wisconsin/dates not specified Evaluation Results

• This evaluation compared the rates of return to prison for 64 probationers and parolees participating in ISP and 56 offenders in conventional parole. The ISP and comparison groups were followed for a one-year period, during which 45 percent of ISP and 41 percent of regular parole offenders were returned to prison, a non-significant difference.

• Further analyses revealed that many more ISP offenders were returned to prison for technical violations (40 percent of ISP) than for committing new crimes (5 percent of ISP), whereas the opposite was true for the comparison group—29 percent were returned for new crimes and 12 percent for technical violations. The authors suggest that ISP was effective in controlling recidivism by identifying “at-risk” offenders and returning them to prison prior to their commission of new crimes.

• The evidence of ISP participation reducing recidivism is still limited in this evaluation, given the short follow-up period, relatively small offender samples, and absence of stringent statistical controls.

WSIPP EVALUATION CHECKLIST

Evaluation rating 3

Sample size ISP: 64; comparison: 56

Random assignment to treatment No

Comparison group Parolees released to maximum-level conventional

supervision; same minimum eligibility requirements as ISP offenders

Means of program entry Probationers and parolees screened and selected

for ISP based on classification that indicates high- risk, history of assaultive behavior, and need for maximum-supervision.

Statistical controls No, but ISP and comparison group matched on

personal and legal variables

Recidivism measure(s) Return to prison

Length of follow-up One year

Program effectiveness Some evidence of effect

Program Description

• The Madison, Wisconsin program was designed to provide enhanced surveillance and control for high-risk offenders who exhibited a history of assaultive behavior and problems with treatment and supervision programs.

• The Madison program involved intensive supervision of probationers and parolees with drug and alcohol monitoring.

Study Reference

U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation and Methodology Division. 1990. Intermediate Sanctions: Their Impacts on Prison Crowding, Costs, and Recidivism Are Still Unclear. Washington, D.C.: GAO.

Byrne, James M. and April Pattavina. 1992. “The Effectiveness Issue: Assessing What Works in the Adult Community Corrections System,” In Byrne et al. (Eds.) Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Program Name: Iowa’s Intensive Supervised Probation

Program Type: Intensive supervised probation

Program Location/Dates: Iowa/1985 to present Evaluation Results

• This evaluation compared 101 ISP probationers to a random sample of 269 probationers selected from districts without ISP programs. Comparison over 21 months of follow-up revealed that each group had approximately 40 percent of offenders with probation revocation.

• A different pattern of recidivism emerged when revocations for new crimes versus

revocations for technical violations are assessed separately. Specifically, revocations for new crimes were twice as high for regular probationers (24 percent) than for ISP offenders (12 percent), a significant difference. However, when technical violations were considered, ISP offenders had more revocations (17 percent) than regular probationers (6 percent), a significant difference. These finding suggested that the ISP program’s treatment and surveillance aspects may have assisted in controlling recidivism, however the heightened levels of surveillance meant that more technical violations were detected among this group • Methodological limitations prevent conclusive interpretation of study results. Specifically, the

evaluation did not employ statistical controls, and offenders in the two groups were not matched on offender traits. As such, there is a strong possibility that sample selection bias is present.

WSIPP EVALUATION CHECKLIST

Evaluation rating 2

Sample size ISP: 101; comparison: 269

Random assignment to treatment No

Comparison group Regular probationers from districts without ISP

programs

Means of program entry Direct sentence or referral to the program

Statistical controls No

Recidivism measure(s) Revocation for new crimes or technical

violations

Length of follow-up 21 months

Program effectiveness Cannot be determined

Program Description

• Established in 1985, the Iowa ISP program was intended for high-risk, violent probationers and parolees. Offenders entered the program through direct sentence or referral if they were deemed likely for revocation from regular probation or community treatment facilities. • The Iowa ISP emphasized enhanced treatment and intensive surveillance. It utilized a

relatively highly structured, progressive disciplinary system for dealing with program infractions.

Study Reference

U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation and Methodology Division. 1990. Intermediate Sanctions: Their Impacts on Prison Crowding, Costs, and Recidivism Are Still Unclear. Washington, D.C.: GAO.

Program Name: Cuyahoga County Intensive Supervised Probation

Program Type: Intensive supervised probation

Program Location/Dates: Cuyahoga County, Ohio/1984 to present Evaluation Results

• This study compared a sample of offenders sentenced to ISP to a sample of offenders drawn from the routine probation caseload. A comparison of the samples revealed that the ISP group possessed characteristics that suggested a greater chance of recidivating. • Measuring recidivism as felony arrests and convictions over a nine-month period,

participation in Cuyahoga County’s ISP did not have a significant effect on offender recidivism.

• Specifically, 11 percent of ISP offenders were arrested for felonies during the nine-month follow-up, compared to 10 percent of the routine probation group. Furthermore, 7 percent of the routine probation group was convicted of a felony during the follow-up period, compared to 6 percent of the ISP group. These differences across groups were not statistically

significant.

WSIPP EVALUATION CHECKLIST

Evaluation rating 2

Sample size ISP: 401; comparison: 404

Random assignment to treatment No

Comparison group Routine probationers

Means of program entry Direct sentence, amended prison sentence,

probation violation.

Statistical controls No

Recidivism measure(s) Felony arrests and convictions

Length of follow-up Nine months

Program effectiveness No evidence of effect

Program Description

• Created in 1984, the Cuyahoga County ISP involved offenders with direct sentences to ISP, as well as those with amended prison sentences, and violators of routine probation.

• The program featured reduced caseloads, with officers supervising an average of 35 offenders. Offenders had at least one officer contact per week.

• Other program features include repayment of restitution and court costs, random drug

testing, employment and educational training, and various other court-mandated stipulations. Study Reference

Latessa, Edward J. and Jill A. Gordon. 1994. "Examining the Factors Related to Success or Failure with Felony Probationers: A Study of Intensive Supervision," Pp. 63-83 in Charles B. Fields (ed.), Innovative Trends and Specialized Strategies in Community Based Corrections. N.Y.: Garland.

Program Name: Georgia ISP

Program Type: Intensive supervised probation

Program Location/Dates: Georgia/1982 to present Evaluation Results

• The Georgia ISP study compared the recidivism (arrest, conviction, and reincarceration) of ISP participants and comparison groups in regular probation and parole. A comparison over an 18-month follow-up revealed that 40 percent of ISP offenders were arrested, compared to 36 percent of regular probation and 58 percent of regular parole offenders. Differences between ISP and regular parolees were significant.

• When convictions were measured separately, 24 percent of ISP offenders were convicted, compared to 24 percent of regular probation and 42 percent of regular parole offenders. Differences between ISP and regular parolees were significant. As such, it was originally concluded that Georgia’s ISP was a success in controlling recidivism, since ISP offenders’ recidivism was lower than that of regular parolees and they displayed rates of recidivism similar to those among regular probationers.

• The study possessed significant methodological limitations that prevent one from concluding whether or not program participation reduced recidivism. The Georgia evaluation involved a control group that was significantly smaller than the ISP treatment group. Furthermore, the control and treatment groups differed markedly on numerous traits that have been found in other studies to influence recidivism.

WSIPP EVALUATION CHECKLIST

Evaluation rating 2

Sample size ISP: 542; comparison: 173 parolees and 753

probationers

Random assignment to treatment No

Comparison group Routine probationers and parolees who may have

met criteria for selection into ISP; limited effort was made to match comparison group with ISP offenders.

Means of program entry Selection criteria imposed; offenders enter program

via direct sentence, amended sentence, or probation revocation.

Statistical controls No

Recidivism measure(s) Arrest, conviction

Length of follow-up 18 months

Program Description

• One of the earliest ISP programs, the Georgia program was a multiple-jurisdiction, “front- door” diversionary program in which offenders entered ISP via direct sentence, amended sentence, or probation revocation. The target subjects for Georgia’s program were largely nonviolent, lower-risk, prison-bound offenders.

• Program caseloads were limited to 25 offenders. Cases were managed by a supervision team consisting of a surveillance officer—whose duty was to monitor the offender, and a probation officer—whose duty was to provide counseling and act as legal authority over the case.

• The Georgia program required unscheduled drug testing, strict probation conditions, mandatory community service, mandatory curfew, employment, weekly arrest checks, and payment of fines and probation supervision fees.

Study References

Erwin, Billie S. 1987. “Turning Up the Heat on Probationers in Georgia,” Federal Probation 50 (2): 17-24.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation and Methodology Division. 1990. Intermediate Sanctions: Their Impacts on Prison Crowding, Costs, and Recidivism Are Still Unclear. Washington, D.C.: GAO.

Program Name: Clackamas County Electronically Monitored Home Confinement

Program Type: Electronic monitoring intensive supervision

Program Location/Dates: Clackamas County, Oregon/dates not specified Evaluation Results

• Rates of arrest were compared for three groups of offenders. They included offenders involved in an intensive supervision program with electronic monitoring, offenders in

intensive supervision program with electronic monitoring and drug treatment, and offenders in a work release program.

• Offenders were partially matched on risk assessment score, however, comparison across groups revealed that the ISP/drug offender group had more serious criminal histories than other groups.

• Electronic monitoring was not found to be more effective in reducing recidivism than the work release program. Specifically, 33 percent of work release offenders were arrested during the follow-up, compared to 47 percent of those in electronic monitoring with drug treatment. Furthermore, the arrest rate for offenders in the electronic monitoring and drug treatment program (47 percent arrested) was significantly higher than among offenders in the electronic monitoring (32 percent arrested).

WSIPP EVALUATION CHECKLIST

Evaluation rating 2

Sample size Eval 1: 64 electronic monitoring; 96 work release

Eval 2: 64 electronic monitoring with drug treatment; 98 electronic monitoring without drug treatment

Random assignment to treatment No

Comparison group Offenders in work-release and offenders in home

monitoring program without drug treatment.

Means of program entry Offenders with prior failures in treatment or with parole/probation violations.

Statistical controls Partially matched on offender risk assessment score,

but home monitoring group had more serious offenses, were younger, and all were substance abusers.

Recidivism measure(s) Arrest

Length of follow-up Not specified

Program effectiveness Cannot be determined

Program Description

• This was an intensive outpatient drug program in Clackamas County, Oregon. The target populations was adult offenders whose substance abuse had led to failures in prior treatment or probation/parole violations.

• The program provided offenders with structured living and treatment, but without incarceration. It involved around-the-clock electronic surveillance, weekly treatment meetings, and drug and alcohol testing.