Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:25 am
Time: 2:25 am
Results for intensive supervision
28 results foundAuthor: Gill, Charlotte E. Title: The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct: A Randomized Low-Intensity Probation Experiment Summary: Probation is a well-established part of our criminal justice toolkit, but we know surprisingly little about the circumstances under which it is effective. Attempts to increase supervision intensity for crime- and cost-saving purposes have yielded mixed results at best. This dissertation examines the theory and scientific evidence on the effectiveness of probation, and the impact of changing the intensity of probation sanctions on recidivism. First, we conduct a rigorous search and synthesis of the existing literature on intensive probation programs. We utilize meta-analysis to identify the circumstances under which such programs might be effective. We find no evidence that probationers in these programs fare better than their counterparts under traditional supervision. We call for further research into supervision approaches that emphasize behavioral management over contact frequency and caseload size. Second, we employ a range of statistical procedures to examine the viability of saving resources by reducing supervision for lowrisk offenders. In a randomized controlled trial comparing low-intensity probation to traditional practice, we find no evidence that reducing supervision increases recidivism. We find that low-risk probationers are heterogeneous in their characteristics but homogeneous in their propensity to reoffend. They appear to respond well regardless of the intensity of the sanction. Finally, we use epidemiological methods to evaluate the low-risk prediction model used in the experiment. We find that the model successfully identifies offenders who are unlikely to commit serious offenses, and is therefore a useful tool for diverting probationers to low-intensity supervision. In turn, low-intensity supervision is not associated with changes in offending severity. Chapters 2 and 3 both conclude that low-intensity supervision is a safe strategy that works very well for a probation agency’s lowest-level offenders. This dissertation contributes to knowledge by changing perceptions of the characteristics of offenders and resource allocation in criminal justice supervision. We find that ‘more’ does not always mean ‘better,’ and there is no need to distribute expensive services equally. In a given probation population, the majority of offenders will respond well no matter how little supervision they receive, so it makes sense to focus our attention on the minority that will not. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2010. 264p. (Thesis) Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2010 at: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=edissertations Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=edissertations Shelf Number: 119641 Keywords: Intensive SupervisionProbationProbationers |
Author: Biehal, Nina Title: A Report on the Intensive Fostering Pilot Programme Summary: This intervention is targeted at serious and persistent young offenders for whom the alternative to fostering would be custody or an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme. In 2005, the Youth Justice Board commissioned agencies in three parts of England to pilot the evidence-based intervention Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care model which had been developed by the Oregon Social Learning Centre in the USA and which, in the context of the English youth justice system, was to be known as Intensive Fostering. We conducted an evaluation using both qualitative and quantitative data to explore the successes and challenges of IF implementation. The study examines the experiences and outcomes of the first participants in the programme in England and compares them with the outcomes of a comparison group who were sentenced to custody or an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP). This study also compares the cost of IF placements with custodial placements and assesses the cost of services used. This study draws on information provided by the IF teams and carers, and the views of young people and their parents. Details: London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2010. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2010 at: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/A%20Report%20on%20the%20Intensive%20Fostering%20Pilot%20Programme.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/A%20Report%20on%20the%20Intensive%20Fostering%20Pilot%20Programme.pdf Shelf Number: 119877 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationFoster CareIntensive SupervisionJuvenile OffendersRehabilitation, Juvenile Offenders |
Author: New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing Title: New Jersey's Drug Courts, Special Probation and Proposal for Reform Summary: This report presents a concise summary of the key findings and recommendations of the New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing concerning N.J.S.A. 2C:3514, commonly referred to as the special probation statute. The special probation statute was enacted as part of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1986 and provides for rehabilitative treatment and intensive supervision for nonviolent, drug-dependent offenders. The special probation statute was intended by the Legislature to divert appropriate offenders subject to state imprisonment to a five-year period of intensive supervision conditioned upon a mandatory six-month period of inpatient drug treatment. The special probation statute predated by several years the establishment of drug courts in New Jersey and serves as a mechanism pursuant to which otherwise prison-bound offenders are admitted into New Jersey's Drug Court Program. The special probation statute and the New Jersey Adult Drug Court Program are not synonymous. The New Jersey Drug Court program is administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts and involves a collaborative relationship between representatives of the criminal justice system, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and probation officers, and drug treatment professionals. The special probation statute defines with particularity which prisonbound defendants, i.e., those who are subject to a presumption of imprisonment or a mandatory minimum term of incarceration, may gain entry into the Drug Court Program. The provision also enumerates specific conditions that must be adhered to by these offenders while participating in the Drug Court Program. There exists compelling evidence that individuals who use illicit drugs are more likely to engage in criminal behavior, and that many offenses are commonly committed by individu als who had used drugs or alcohol during or just prior to committing their crimes. The drug court model was developed in response to a widespread recognition that the conventional criminal justice process had little impact on the rehabilitative prospects of drug-dependent offenders. The principal goal of drug courts is to reduce drug use and associated criminal behavior by engaging and retaining drug-involved offenders in coerced treatment. At the center of the collaborative approach embodied by the drug court model is the trial judge. The investment of judicial resources in drug court programs has been validated by a study reflecting that “highrisk” offenders perform better in drug court when subject to biweekly status hearings. While acknowledging the methodological flaws in a substantial number of studies, the New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing (Commission) has nonetheless reviewed recent literature on the impact of drug courts and concluded there is substantial and empirically reliable evidence that drug courts are indeed effective in reducing recidivism among offenders who have successfully completed drug court programs. Although more comprehensive and methodologically rigorous studies are certainly warranted, the available outcome data for offenders sentenced under N.J.S.A. 2C:3514 compares favorably to the data on outcomes for nondrug court state prison offenders. Details: Trenton: New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing, 2007. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2010 at: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/special_probation_report_April_2007.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/special_probation_report_April_2007.pdf Shelf Number: 120374 Keywords: Drug Courts (New Jersey)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentIntensive SupervisionProbation |
Author: Hennigan, Karen Title: Five Year Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of a Community-Based Multi-Agency Intensive Supervision Juvenile Probation Program Summary: The long term outcomes of an intensive supervision probation program implemented in several neighborhood afterschool centers in high crime neighborhoods in Los Angeles County California were evaluated. Over a two year period, youth were randomly assigned to this new program or to supervision-as-usual. Of all the boys age 15 or younger who were assessed at low risk for re-offending at program intake, those randomly assigned to the new program were three times more likely to have been incarcerated in prison or the California Youth Authority over the five years following the program (12% vs. 4% in the control program). At the end of the five-year follow-up period, 69% of the younger low risk boys in the new program were out of the criminal justice system altogether relative to 83% of their counterparts in the control program. Certain attitudes and perceptions associated with delinquent behavior in past empirical studies were changed among these boys who participated in the new program. When interviewed after the program, they had lower expectations of being caught and punished for delinquent activities, lower self esteem in the context of school and family, and were more likely to believe they were the type of kid who “gets into trouble” than their counterparts in the “supervision-as-usual” program. Each of these mediators was associated with the negative long term outcomes found among the younger low risk boys in this experimental study. These results are consistent with a social influence model called “deviancy training.” Of all the youth on probation who participated in the intensive probation program, only the younger lower risk boys were negatively affected. The older higher risk youth had favorable outcomes initially but these dissipated over time. One problem that may have contributed to the loss of the immediate advantages is a kind of “catch 22” that is common in intensive supervision programs where the intensity of the supervision can lead to more probation violations and more detention experiences. Youth that accumulate more detention experiences are typically treated more severely in their next encounter with law enforcement due to a labeling effect. Just looking at their records, it appears that their behavior is more serious and harder to control due to the increased sanctions experienced and future sanctions are calibrated in accordance with that view. There was an association between being detained in juvenile hall and the long term rate of incarceration among the older higher risk youth. The authors argue that it is important for those who plan, implement, and manage juvenile justice probation programs to consider the implications of the long term outcomes of this group-based intensive supervision program. Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232621.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232621.pdf Shelf Number: 120558 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationIntensive SupervisionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Probation |
Author: Khan, Furzana Title: Evaluation of Includem’s Intensive Support Services Summary: In 2005 Includem commissioned a two-year evaluation of its intensive support services provided to young people as part of the Intensive Support and Monitoring Service in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, East Dunbartonshire, and West Dunbartonshire. Over two years Includem’s provided intensive support, normally around 15 hours per week plus access to Includem’s 24-hour crisis helpline, to over 200 young people, including 69 young people with a Movement Restriction Condition ('electronic tag'). Details: Glasgow: Includem, 2007. 150p; summary. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 6, 2011 at: http://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/socialwork/glasgowcentreforthechildandsociety/publications/ and http://www.includem.org/file/2 Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/socialwork/glasgowcentreforthechildandsociety/publications/ and http://www.includem.org/file/2 Shelf Number: 121987 Keywords: Electronic Monitoring (Scotland)Intensive SupervisionJuvenile OffendersRecidivism |
Author: Mallender, Jacque Title: Final Report: An Economic Analysis of Alternatives to Short Term Custody Summary: The objective of this research was to generate evidence on the economic benefits of providing Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC order) as an alternative to short term custodial sentences. An IAC order is a comprehensive community based intervention which focuses on reducing the risk of reoffending. Typically an IAC order involves a combination of intensive supervision and a variety of requirements such as unpaid work, curfews, mandatory hours of structured activity per week, and enrolment in accredited programmes. The nature of the IAC order varies, however, between recipients and models of delivery. Practitioners of IAC orders maintain a high level of confidence in the programmes they are running and believe they make a measurable impact on reoffending. However, to date no evaluation has been done on the effect of IAC orders on reoffending. In this context, Matrix Evidence was commissioned by Make Justice Work to estimate the economic benefits of providing an IAC order in two pilot sites – Manchester and Bradford – in comparison to providing short term custodial sentences. The report then attempted to take these findings and consider what economic benefits could be generated if the IAC order were rolled out nationally. Specifically the economic benefits are estimated in terms of cost savings due to both reduced intervention costs and reduced reoffending. Details: London: Make Justice Work and Matrix Evidence, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2012 at: http://www.matrixknowledge.co.uk/Documents/Matrix%20MJW_updated%20Final%20Report_June%202012%20(2).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.matrixknowledge.co.uk/Documents/Matrix%20MJW_updated%20Final%20Report_June%202012%20(2).pdf Shelf Number: 125475 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Costs of Criminal JusticeEconomic AnalysisIntensive SupervisionPrisoners |
Author: Clark, Rebecca Title: Process Evaluation of Manchester and Salford Intensive Alternatives to Custody Pilot Summary: The Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) order was introduced to provide a credible alternative to a short custodial sentence. The order, based on emerging desistance and compliance theories (McNeil, 2009; Bottoms, 2002), was designed to punish and rehabilitate through the application of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) order requirements alongside additional services. The Manchester and Salford IAC pilot ran for two years, from April 2009 to March 2011. The order was co-designed and co-commissioned across the public, private and voluntary sectors, and thus offered the opportunity to pilot an innovative approach to local commissioning and integrated service delivery. A co-located, dedicated resource of Offender Managers (OMs) and partner agency staff operated from a site in Manchester City centre. Partner staff included employment focussed mentors (Work Solutions), a family support worker (Partners of Prisoners) and Group 4 Security (G4S) outreach staff to support compliance. The Manchester model was targeted at 18–25 year old men at risk of a short custodial sentence (often due to breach of previous community sentences). Offenders sentenced to an IAC order received a 12 month Community Order with between three and five requirements. During the first three months of the order, contact between the offender and the OM was intensive, with up to four appointments a week. These reduced over the course of the order. The requirements included: Supervision Curfew Community Payback Offending behaviour programmes Attendance centre Activity requirements (to deliver employment and victim awareness interventions, amongst others) The process evaluation of the Manchester and Salford IAC pilot was commissioned by the MoJ in April 2009.1 The key aims were to critically assess: The design and implementation of the IAC order; The process of identifying suitable offenders; The role of pre-sentence reports (PSRs); The views of court stakeholders on the viability of IAC as an alternative to short-term custody; The management and supervision of IAC offenders; The work undertaken to sustain motivation and secure compliance on the IAC order; and, The role of interagency work in the delivery of the IAC order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Suimmary 6/12: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-manchester-salford-iac-pilot.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-manchester-salford-iac-pilot.pdf Shelf Number: 125794 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community CorrectionsIntensive Supervision |
Author: Wong, Kevin Title: Process Evaluation of Derbyshire Intensive Alternatives to Custody Pilot Summary: The Derbyshire Intensive Alternatives to Custody pilot ran from 2008 to 2011 to test the use of intensive community orders to divert offenders from short-term custodial sentences. The pilot was delivered through dedicated Offender Managers (OMs) in Derby City, and through OMs with wider caseloads in rural Derbyshire county. IAC orders targeted offenders at risk of short-term custody and represented a repackaging of existing and new requirements, which aimed to both punish and rehabilitate. The Derbyshire IAC model consisted of five mandatory requirements: electronic curfew; twice-weekly probation supervision; intensive unpaid work; weekly mentoring contact; and monthly court reviews (for the first three months). In addition, other requirements such as Thinking Skills programmes were sometimes included along with prohibited activity and exclusions requirements.1 Derbyshire was unique among the pilots for including curfews for all IAC offenders and paid mentoring. The order was characterised by three stages, defined by levels of contact and intensity which reduced over the (normally) 12 months order. The process evaluation of the Derbyshire IAC pilot was commissioned by the MoJ in December 2008.2 The key aims were to critically assess: resourcing and staffing; the process of identifying suitable IAC offenders; the role of pre-sentence reports; views of sentencers on the viability of IAC as an alternative to short-term custody; the management and supervision of IAC offenders, including mentors, interventions and activities; and, factors influencing compliance with an IAC order; and the role of inter-agency working in the delivery of the IAC order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 7/12: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-derbs-iac-pilot.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-derbs-iac-pilot.pdf Shelf Number: 125795 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community CorrectionsIntensive Supervision |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: The Impact of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) Pilot Implementation on Parole Agent Attitudes Summary: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) currently supervises approximately 125,000 offenders on post-release supervision, or parole. California's rate of parolees per population, currently 438 per 100,000 residents, is much higher than the national average of 315 (Glaze & Bonczar, 2009). This is due in part to the large prison population in California, which results in a large number of offenders released to community supervision at the completion of their sentences. Two sentencing decisions contribute to California's higher-than-average number of parolees. First, determinate sentencing laws introduced in 1976 resulted in fixed sentences of imprisonment for particular crimes, followed by mandatory release. This compares with a system of indeterminate sentencing, applied in some states, which sets minimum and maximum terms but leaves the release decision to parole boards (discretionary release). Second, California historically has released all prisoners to a period of supervised parole, usually for three years, rather than reserving supervision for some offenders and releasing offenders assessed to be a lower risk to the community with no supervision requirements. With so many offenders under parole supervision, inevitably many parolees violate parole, either by committing a new offense or through technical violations of their parole conditions (e.g., failing a drug test or missing a meeting with their parole agent). The return to custody (RTC) rate for a parolee in California is 66%, nearly twice the national average (Fischer, 2005), and on any given day, six out of ten prison admissions in California are returning parolees (Grattet, Petersilia, & Lin, 2008). In recent years, reviews of the corrections system in California have recommended reforms to implement evidence-based practices (EBP) into corrections policy. One common suggestion has been the targeting of parole supervision and treatment resources to those offenders most at risk of reoffending (Little Hoover Commission, 2007; Burke, 2009). Two recent legislative changes have altered California's parole system significantly. First, Senate Bill 3X 18 (Penal Code Section 3000.03), effective January 25th 2010, introduced Non-Revocable Parole (NRP), which placed ‘lower risk, low stakes' offenders into the community with no parole supervision or parole conditions, but still subject to warrantless search and seizure by law enforcement. To be eligible for NRP, offenders must have no prior serious or violent felonies, a low or moderate California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) risk score, and not be required to register as a sex offender. Consequently, parole resources were targeted toward those offenders with a higher risk to reoffend who were most in need of assistance with reentry. Second, legislation changed the funding of agent caseloads, reducing caseloads from a funding ratio of 70 cases per agent down to 48:1. These two changes - the removal of a proportion of offenders from parole caseloads and the potential to lower the number of cases that each agent supervised - resulted in a unique opportunity for DAPO management to reconsider the way it supervised offenders to incorporate recent developments in EBP research and ‘best practice’ policies being introduced by colleague agencies elsewhere. In October 2009, DAPO convened a Parole Reform Task Force (PRTF) to recommend new policies and procedures in light of research findings and supervision methods used in other jurisdictions. The PRTF comprised 19 representatives from DAPO Headquarters and all four parole regions, and included ranks of Parole Agent 1 (‘rank and file’ parole agents), PA2 (Assistant Unit Supervisors), and PA3 (Unit Supervisors), in addition to Parole Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, and Regional Administrators. The Task Force met weekly through January 2010 and produced a report describing the new parole model, called the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM). The CPSRM represented a significant change to the way DAPO supervised offenders post-release. Sections in the Task Force report (i.e., pre-release planning, case management, case conferences, quality of supervision, agent workload, programming, parolee rewards and incentives, and parolee discharge procedures) carefully documented relevant research findings in support of the new practices outlined. At the crux of CPSRM was a move away from a ‘surveillance’ model of supervision towards an approach that emphasized both the quality of supervision, and the engagement of the parolee in the supervision process. Agents were trained in Motivational Interviewing (MI) techniques and used detailed comprehensive interviews to identify the criminogenic needs of parolees. These criminogenic needs formed the basis of the parolee’s case plan. Parolees were encouraged to identify tangible, small steps they could take every month in order to address these needs, and these tasks were written down in a Goals Report. Parolees were now invited to attend Case Conference Reviews in which their case plan was discussed; early discharge from parole was based in part on the level of commitment shown by the parolee in taking a more active role in his/her supervision. Based on the PRTF report a comprehensive DAPO policy manual was developed. Current plans are that CPSRM will roll out state-wide. Prior to its widespread implementation, a pilot implementation took place at four parole units in order to test policies in the field and make adjustments based on agent feedback. This report presents findings from surveys of parole agent attitudes during the CPSRM pilot implementation process. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: accessed February 15, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Shelf Number: 127422 Keywords: Intensive SupervisionParole (California)Parole OfficersParole ReformParoleesPrisoner Reintegration |
Author: Dunham, Kate Title: The Effort to Implement the Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) Impact Evaluation: Lessons and Implications for Future Research Summary: In the summer of 2005, the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (DOL ETA) issued a request for proposals (RFP) to conduct an Impact Study of the Youth Offender Demonstration Program (YODP). The YODP evaluation team selected by DOL was comprised of Social Policy Research Associates (SPR), MDRC, Decision Information Resources (DIR), and Johns Hopkins University. As detailed in the RFP, the intended study was a random assignment evaluation to address a number of important questions about how to work most effectively with youth offenders to prevent recidivism and increase their employment and earnings. To try to answer these questions, the study would have had courts in six different jurisdictions agree to use random assignment methodology to assign youth to a control group in which they received only standard incarceration or assign youth to one of two study groups as follows: study group 1, in which youth were incarcerated but received aftercare services from a YODP grantee, or study group 2, in which youth received services from a YODP grantee in lieu of being incarcerated. To implement the random assignment study required that the courts allow the random assignment process to determine which youth would be incarcerated and which would be assigned to a YODP grantee (essentially to be set free), instead of relying on the judge’s discretion. A similar study took place in the Wayne County Juvenile Court in Detroit, Michigan in the mid 1980s. This study randomly assigned more than 500 youths to either a control group in which youth were assigned to state incarceration or to a study group in which youth received intensive supervision as an alternative to incarceration. This study was only successfully implemented due to a set of very specific circumstances (described in detail below) that did not exist within the six YODP sites. Despite the evaluation team’s best efforts, the evaluation team was unable to convince the courts and YODP programs in any of the six selected jurisdictions to accept the random assignment methodology. As a result, DOL opted not to proceed with the evaluation. This paper describes the evaluation team’s efforts in persuading sites to implement the random assignment design, discusses the range of reasons why these efforts were unsuccessful, and explores what lessons can be drawn from this experience and other studies that have employed random assignment to aid the implementation of future random assignment evaluations. The paper begins with an overview of the six YODP grantees selected by DOL to participate in the evaluation and of the random assignment evaluation plan as outlined in the evaluation team’s proposal. Next, the paper describes the various challenges encountered by the evaluation team in implementing the original random assignment design. Following this, the paper summarizes a number of other studies that have successfully implemented random assignment and draw comparisons and contrasts of these studies to the intended design in the YODP evaluation. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of lessons learned from this effort and several recommendations that may assist DOL in implementing future random assignment evaluations. Details: Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates, 2008. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2013 at: http://www.nawdp.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ResearchReports/2009-5-TheEfforttoImplementtheYouthOffendeDemonstrat.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.nawdp.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ResearchReports/2009-5-TheEfforttoImplementtheYouthOffendeDemonstrat.pdf Shelf Number: 127649 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationEmploymentEx-Offender EmploymentIntensive SupervisionRecidivismTreatment ProgramsYoung Adult Offenders (U.S.) |
Author: Chana, Rajinder Title: A Local Evaluation of the Intensive Alternative to Custody Pilot in Leeds Summary: This local evaluation aimed to examine the extent to which the Intensive Alternative to Custody (IAC) pilot was implemented in Leeds, capture any issues and areas of good practice, measure whether it was fulfilling its aims, and to measure throughput, compliance, and completion levels. It also sought to capture re-offending rates. There are seven pilots nationally, each aimed at offenders who are on the cusp of custody. The Order is proposed for eligible offenders at the pre-sentence stage and sentencers can select from a range of punitive and rehabilitative requirements to create a tailored community-based intervention with intensive management. There are five enforceable weekly contacts for a minimum of the first 16 weeks. Post-16 week intensive appointments are at the offender manager’s discretion based on progress made. Thereafter, the Order reverts to a Community Order. The Leeds IAC is co-located with two voluntary partnership organisations; Crime Reduction Initiative (CRI) and Developing Initiatives Supporting Communities (DISC). Along with these and the Together Women Project, outreach work and interventions are offered alongside punitive elements such as a curfew or community payback requirement. Restorative Justice (RJ) is another element of the Order. Data was obtained from questionnaires administered to offenders during the Order; a data monitoring spreadsheet; CRAMS and OASys systems; Police re-offending systems; gatekeeping forms; and from interviews with offenders and stakeholders including the project manager. The purpose of this data collection and analysis was to answer the following questions. 1. Was the project delivered as planned? What were the barriers to delivery and how could they be overcome? 2. What are the views of project stakeholders (including offenders, their family, and victims) and how well do they think the project has been implemented? What impact do they think it may have had? 3. What are the views of offenders who fail to complete the Order? Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Trust, 2011. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2011 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2011 Shelf Number: 128266 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community-based CorrectionsIntensive Supervision |
Author: Jones, Denis W. Title: Conditions for Sustainable Decarceration Strategies for Young Offenders Summary: Between 1978 and 1992 the number of juvenile offenders aged under 17 in England and Wales who were removed from home under sentence and sent to institutions such as detention centres, borstals, youth custody institutions or residential Community Homes with Education fell from 14,000 to 1,800. This thesis documents how this significant decarceration came about, and why it has been given little attention in the criminological literature, placing it in context of developments in juvenile justice legislation and practice between 1965 and 1996 and theories of policy change. It suggests that the key development was the funding of charity and voluntary sector organisations to provide Intensive Intermediate Treatment programmes to juvenile courts as an alternative to custody, and the development of a small group of practitioners willing to act as campaigning advocates for young offenders in court. Interviews with key politicians, civil servants, academics and practitioners from this period are used to explore these trends in more detail, and consideration is given to the respective roles of the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security and the tensions between them over responsibility for young offenders. The development is then situated within theories and examples of decarceration, deinstitutionalization, abolitionism and reductionism, drawing on attempts to close institutions or to reduce institutionalization in the fields of youth justice, mental health and learning difficulties in the UK and other countries. Alternative explanations of what happened in juvenile justice in England and Wales are considered and challenged. Conclusions are then drawn as to the conditions that are necessary for any decarceration strategy to be successful and sustainable. Details: London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 2012. 524p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 3, 2013 at: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/238/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/238/ Shelf Number: 129247 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDecarcerationIntensive SupervisionIntermediate Treatment ProgramsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Delinquents (U.K.) |
Author: Ringland, Clare Title: Sentencing Outcomes for Those Assessed for Intensive Correction Order Suitability Summary: Aim: To examine outcomes of assessments for intensive correction orders, including the penalties imposed on those deemed unsuitable. Method: Assessment data for intensive correction orders were obtained from Corrective Services NSW and linked to finalised court appearances between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2012. The proportion of assessment episodes associated with a finalised court appearance where an intensive correction order was imposed and the penalties imposed on offenders who did not receive an intensive correction order were examined. Results: 2,580 assessment episodes were identified, with 93 per cent (n=2,389) linked to a finalised court appearance. Of these assessment episodes linked to a court appearance, 55 per cent resulted in an intensive correction order. Of the assessment episodes linked to a finalised court appearance resulting in a sentence other than an intensive correction order, the most common penalties imposed were imprisonment (58%), a suspended sentence with supervision (16%) and a suspended sentence without supervision (8%). Conclusion: In line with intensive correction orders being introduced as an alternative to full-time imprisonment, the vast majority of offenders assessed for an intensive correction order who do not receive one instead receive a penalty of imprisonment or an alternative form of imprisonment (i.e., home detention or a suspended sentence). Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2013. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper no. 86: Accessed July 8, 2013 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB86.pdf/$file/BB86.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB86.pdf/$file/BB86.pdf Shelf Number: 129276 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Mews, Aidan Title: Updated Analysis of the Impact of the Intensive Alternatives to Custody Pilots on Re-offending Rates Summary: The Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) pilot programme ran from April 2008 to March 2011 to test the use of intensive community orders in diverting offenders from short-term custodial sentences. The Ministry of Justice have undertaken updated analysis to compare re-offending rates for offenders receiving IAC orders in 2009 and 2010, with matched offenders receiving short custodial sentences and court orders. The analysis assesses the effectiveness of Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) orders in reducing re-offending compared with a) short-term custodial sentences and b) court orders. Offenders starting an Intensive Alternative to Custody (IAC) order in 2009 or 2010 were matched to similar offenders receiving these disposals and their re-offending was compared. This report updates previous analysis published in July 2012 by including a larger sample (due to 2010 re-offending rates becoming available), using Propensity Score Matching (PSM) methodology as opposed to variable by variable matching, and by including additional offender information from Offender Assessment System (OASys), Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) data sources. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed March 20, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289369/updated-analysis-impact-of-intensive-alternatives-to-custody-pilots-on-re-offending-rates.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289369/updated-analysis-impact-of-intensive-alternatives-to-custody-pilots-on-re-offending-rates.pdf Shelf Number: 131989 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationIntensive SupervisionOffender SupervisionRe-OffendingRecidivism |
Author: Ringland, Clare Title: The Impact of Intensive Correction Orders on Re-Offending Summary: Aim: To examine the risk of re-offending of those who received an intensive correction order (ICO), relative to those who received periodic detention and suspended sentences with supervision. Method: Details of offenders' demographic and offence characteristics, prior convictions and penalties received, and re-offences were extracted from the Re-offending Database maintained by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Using propensity score modelling, offenders who received an ICO as a principal penalty in a NSW court between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2012 were matched to two comparable groups of offenders who received periodic detention between 1 October 2007 and 30 September 2009 and suspended sentences with supervision between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2012. A supplementary comparison with those who received suspended sentences with supervision included matching on Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R) assessment scores, in addition to demographic and offending characteristics. Time to first re-offence was estimated using the Nelson-Aalen estimator of the cumulative hazard rate function and compared between groups using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: An offender on an ICO had 33 per cent less risk of re-offending than an offender on periodic detention (HR=0.67, 95% confidence interval (0.55, 0.83), p<.001). There was no significant difference in re-offending between those who received ICOs and supervised suspended sentences after taking into account LSI-R assessment scores. Conclusion: There is some evidence to suggest that ICOs are more effective than periodic detention in terms of re-offending rates. However, future evaluations should include more detailed offender, treatment and program participation information in order to better understand any observed differences between comparison groups. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 176: Accessed May 7, 2014 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb176.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb176.pdf Shelf Number: 132261 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Maryland. Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention Title: Evaluation of the Maryland Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI): 2013 Summary: In 2007, under the direction of Governor Martin O'Malley, the Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI) was launched in Maryland. Developed and implemented by the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation, now known as Community Supervision, the goal of VPI was to identify, and closely monitor the state's most dangerous supervisees. In 2010, Dr. James F. Austin from the JFA Institute completed a preliminary evaluation of VPI while analyzing specific data regarding the VPI population. Expanding on these preliminary findings, GOCCP conducted a study with additional research to determine if VPI was truly accomplishing its goals by lowering recidivism among a violent subgroup of offenders, and providing swift and certain punishment to violent offenders who violated the terms of their community supervision. This current study used a quasi-experimental design to analyze two groups of offenders. The control group consisted of paroled offenders who were assigned to Maryland's intensive community supervision program for the three years prior to the implementation of VPI in 2007. The experimental group consisted of paroled offenders who were assigned to Maryland's Violence Prevention Initiative from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008. Criminal and technical violation data was collected on both cohorts for a period of three years from their assignment to their respective supervision. Results indicated that the 2004 control group had a statistically significantly higher mean number of arrests while under original supervision, violent arrests while under original supervision, arrests 3 years after the start of supervision, and violent arrests 3 years after the start of supervision than the VPI group. In addition, offenders in the 2008 group were violated, served warrants, and apprehended swifter than offenders in the 2004 group. Finally, offenders in the VPI group were more likely to have their supervision revoked for a new offense, a violent new offense, and a technical violation when compared to the 2004 sample. An analysis of the substance treatment aspect of VPI yielded inconclusive results due to limitations in data collection. Overall, evidence supports the theory that when compared to the intensive supervision program in place prior to VPI, the Violence Prevention Initiative aids in the reduction of crime, and administers swift and certain sanctions when supervision is violated. Details: Towson, MD: Maryland Statistical Analysis Center (MSAC) Governors Office of Crime Control and Prevention, 2014. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 1, 2014 at: http://www.jrsa.org/sac-spotlight/maryland/vpi-eval.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jrsa.org/sac-spotlight/maryland/vpi-eval.pdf Shelf Number: 133528 Keywords: Crime PreventionIntensive SupervisionParole SupervisionParoleesViolence Prevention (Maryland)Violent CrimeViolent Offenders |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspectorate Title: The effectiveness of youth conferencing Summary: The report, 'The effectiveness of youth conferencing' examined how the Youth Justice Agency (YJA) used youth conferences to deal with young offenders in supporting them to accept responsibility for their behaviour and its impact on their victims. The inspection revealed that the youth conference process is working more effectively and efficiently than identified in past CJI reports published in 2008 and 2010. Higher risk young people had been appropriately channelled into an Intensive Supervision and Support Programme (ISSP) which provided a more robust method of ensuring young persons' needs are met in a way that helped prevent re-offending. This report identifies that around 40% of referrals involved young people who were looked-after in the care home system, and there were inconsistencies in how these young people are dealt with when they commit offences. The report calls for the development of a joint strategy between the YJA and the Health Trusts aimed at integrating restorative practices within all care homes in support of youth conferences. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspectorate of Northern Ireland, 2015. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/c3/c35d6f56-03e9-4b28-be6e-3a948107c6e9.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/c3/c35d6f56-03e9-4b28-be6e-3a948107c6e9.pdf Shelf Number: 135058 Keywords: Intensive SupervisionJuvenile Offenders (Northern Ireland)Restorative JusticeYouth Conferencing |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: They couldn't do it to a grown up: Tagging children without due process Summary: - The Howard League for Penal Reform has discovered that around 1000 children last year were given an additional punishment at the midpoint of their Detention and Training Orders (DTOs), when they could not be further detained without a court order - The punishment is known as 'intensive supervision and surveillance' (ISS). It involves 25 hours of specified activities a week, electronic monitoring and a night time curfew - The decision to release a child on ISS at this point is not made by a judge and the child has no say in it. If the child does not comply, he or she can go back to jail Tagging children without due process - Data in this research briefing is based on Freedom of Information requests made to every local authority in England and Wales - 26 local authorities tagged 10 or more children in the last year, and 26 tagged none at all. Five local authorities used this for 20 or more children - This punishment is not available for adults. It is part of a confused criminal justice system that muddles punishment with welfare for children - Private companies profit from the tagging arrangements, but the ISS does not reduce reoffending. Instead, it results in excessive punishment and sets children up to fail. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2015 at: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/ISS_final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/ISS_final.pdf Shelf Number: 135366 Keywords: CurfewsElectronic MonitoringIntensive SupervisionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Intensive Supervision (Adults): Technical Report (includes Electronic Monitoring) Summary: Intensive supervision is an intermediate sanction intended to reduce the costs of incarceration, by decreasing the time that offenders spend in jail or prison, while protecting public safety through increased monitoring (Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, Andrews, 2000; MacKenzie, 2006). Offenders who receive intensive supervision are sentenced to community-based sanctions with increased supervision rather than incarceration. Traditionally, the defining feature of intensive supervision is the increased allocation of resources to surveillance, which can include a range of strategies for monitoring and controlling offenders in the community: increased contact with probation/parole officers, reduced caseload for probation/parole officers, home confinement, Day Reporting Centers, electronic monitoring, and random drug testing (Tonry, 1990). Surveillance-oriented intensive supervision programs (ISP) are designed to reduce recidivism via increased monitoring of offenders' location and activities, which is intended to have a deterrent effect on criminal behavior. In contrast, treatment-oriented ISPs intended to reduce recidivism via the use of monitoring to enforce compliance with treatment and supervision goals, which is believed to result in long-term behavioral change (Brown, 2007). Prior Research Research on intensive supervision suggests that surveillance alone is not an effective strategy for deterring criminal behavior. Results from an extensive study that used random assignment to evaluate the effects of ISP at 14 sites in nine states demonstrated that increased surveillance had no impact on rearrest rates when compared to regular supervision or incarceration (Petersilia & Turner, 1993). Similarly, MacKenzie (2006) combined 31 effect sizes, from 13 studies, and found a non-significant increase in recidivism for offenders who participated in ISP when compared to other forms of supervision (probation/parole or incarceration). In fact, in some cases, ISPs have been associated with higher rates of incarceration due to increased detection of technical violations (GAO, 1993; Gendreau et al., 2000). This latter finding suggests that surveillance-oriented ISPs are ineffective-from both a cost and public safety perspective-because they do not reduce the incidence of new crimes but do increase the likelihood that offenders will be returned to jail or prison on technical violations. A separate analysis of intermediate sanction programs that included a treatment component found that those programs were associated with a 10% reduction in recidivism (Gendreau et al., 2000). Increasingly, research indicates that ISPs are more effective when structured in accordance with the principles of effective rehabilitation, combining treatment and rehabilitation programming with intensive monitoring (Andrews, Bonta, & Hodge, 1990; Bonta, 2001). In a series of cost-benefit analyses, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) consistently found significant reductions in recidivism for treatment-oriented ISPs when compared to regular supervision (Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; Aos et al., 2011; Drake, 2009). Surveillance-oriented ISPs were not associated with any statistically significant difference in reoffending when compared to regular supervision. The WSIPP analyses found no difference in recidivism when comparing ISP to incarceration; however, given cost differences between community-based supervision and a secure placement, the authors concluded that ISP was cost effective when compared to prison (Aos et al., 2001). In a meta-analysis of 58 ISPs, Lowenkamp, Flores, Holsinger, Makarios, and Latessa (2010) found a relationship between the impact of ISPs and program philosophy: treatment-oriented ISPs were associated with statistically significant reductions in recidivism while deterrence-oriented programs were not. Further emphasizing the importance of treatment as a component of ISPs, the authors found that even programs that included well-implemented treatment did not significantly reduce recidivism when it was provided in the context of a surveillanc--oriented ISP. Electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring (EM) is also an intermediate sanction, often implemented within the context of home confinement or a curfew order. Offenders are monitored by probation/parole staff via a range of devices, which include wrist and ankle bracelets, global positioning systems, and voice verification systems (U. S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), 2009). While many EM programs are administered as part of an ISP, the WSIPP studies evaluated electronic monitoring (EM) separately and found no difference in recidivism rates for offenders sentenced to EM when compared to incarceration (Drake, 2009) or regular probation (Aos et al., 2001). These findings are confirmed in MacKenzie's (2006) analysis of eight EM studies and in Renzema and May-Wilson's (2007) systematic review. Renzema and May-Wilson only identified three studies that met inclusion criteria in terms of methodological rigor. Their meta-analysis of those studies showed no effect on reoffending as a result of EM; combining the results of this analysis with the systematic review, the authors concluded that no empirical proof exists to show that EM reduces recidivism. The U.S. Department of Justice (2009), however, argues that the lack of difference in recidivism rates for EM-supervised offenders when compared to incarcerated offenders is justification for the use of EM, because EM is less expensive than prison. Renzema's (2007) analysis supports this assessment, to some degree, as the authors conclude that EM can be appropriate when used "to accomplish realistic goals" rather than as a "knee-jerk reaction to crime, overcrowding, and high costs of running correctional systems" (p. 232). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Adult_Tech_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Adult_Tech_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 136590 Keywords: Costs of crimeCosts of Criminal JusticeElectronic MonitoringIntensive SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbationProbationers |
Author: Western Australia. Office of the Auditor General Title: Implementing and Managing Community Based Sentences Summary: Background Community Based Orders and Intensive Supervision Orders are available to the courts for sentencing convicted off enders and are served in the community. They were established as part of a sentencing hierarchy by the Sentencing Act 1995. They are a low cost sentencing option, currently costing the State $12 per day per off ender as compared to $180 per day for imprisonment. They were expected to contribute to reducing imprisonment rates and to enable the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentences to be more effective. In 2000 nearly 4000 such sentences were issued to both first time offenders and repeat offenders who had been convicted of a variety of offences from robbery to drink driving offences. What the examination found... Western Australia's imprisonment rate continues to be higher than that of most States and Territories. About 60 per cent of Community Based Orders and about 50 per cent of Intensive Supervision Orders issued each year are completed. These completion rates are lower than those for most other states and territories. Off enders assessed as having a high risk of re-off ending have a lower completion rate (42 per cent) than other off enders (70 per cent). The Ministry of Justice does not have a comprehensive strategy for rehabilitating off enders and the rehabilitative effects of the sentences are not known. The management of treatment programs, the main ingredient for rehabilitating off enders is ad hoc and inconsistent with little or no coordination of the internal and external program providers. Case management is not achieving its objective of being an integrated process for managing offenders. Although the Ministry collects a variety of information about offenders this information is not always analysed and utilized in planning services to enable more targeted service provision. Both the overall number of offenders on these orders, as well as the proportion of high-risk offenders, has increased since the Sentencing Act was implemented without any review of resourcing. Managing offenders is a specialised function that requires considerable experience for effective service provision. Many Community Corrections Officers employed on short-term contracts, are inexperienced and carry heavy caseloads. There is a risk that inexperienced staff can make poor judgements, which could impact negatively on the off ender and the community. While there are a plethora of processes, practices and programs in the management of offenders, the Ministry does not regularly evaluate them. Therefore, it is not known whether these processes, practices and programs benefit or hinder their management. What the examination recommended... Major recommendations made in the report are that: The Ministry of Justice should: Systematically collect and evaluate information about the characteristics of offenders to enable more informed planning. Develop a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy for offenders in the community. Define the aims of rehabilitation and develop and implement appropriate performance indicators to assess the rehabilitative benefits of orders. Regularly review resource allocations in relation to the demands presented by the changing characteristics of offenders. Evaluate their services regularly with a view to ensuring their appropriateness and effectiveness. -- Develop and implement a human resource management plan that ensures a stable and well-trained workforce. Identify and endorse appropriate benchmarks for the workloads of Community Correction Officers and other staff to enable meaningful development performance measures for their work. Details: Perth: Western Australia Auditor General, 2001. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 3: Accessed August 26, 2015 at: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2001_03.pdf Year: 2001 Country: Australia URL: https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2001_03.pdf Shelf Number: 136591 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsCommunity CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionOffender ManagementOffender Supervision |
Author: Sarver, Christian M. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Intensive Supervision (Juveniles): Technical Report Summary: While originally designed as a cost-saving mechanism for diverting adult offenders from institutional placements, intensive supervision programs (ISP) have also been implemented with juveniles. With juvenile offenders, ISPs explicitly attend to both the rehabilitative- and surveillance-oriented goals of the juvenile justice system (Armstrong, 1991). These programs typically provide treatment and services for both offenders and their families, target offenders' interactions in peer- and school-environments, and provide structure to monitor the goals of the court (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1991; Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005). In the 1990s, the United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created an intensive aftercare research and demonstration program to provide best practice guidelines for reintegrating high-risk, juvenile parolees into the community. Known as intensive aftercare programs (IAP), this model used increased supervision as one component of a structured, multi-dimensional intervention that included assessment, transition planning, case management, and graduated sanctions (Wiebush et al., 2005). Prior Research Research on juvenile offenders provides inconclusive results on the effectiveness of intensive supervision as a strategy for deterring criminal and delinquent behavior (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009; Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011; Lipsey, 2009; MacKenzie, 2006). In an analysis of intensive supervision for juveniles, MacKenzie (2006) combined nine (9) effect sizes and found no difference in recidivism rates for juveniles placed in ISPs when compared to regular supervision or secure placement. Drake, Aos, and Miller (2009) also found no difference in recidivism rates between juveniles in ISPs when compared to regular supervision (three (3) studies) or secure placements (five (5) studies). In contrast, an earlier study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that juvenile offenders on intensive supervision had significantly lower rates of recidivism than offenders on regular supervision (Aos et al., 2001). The WSIPP analyses found no difference in recidivism when comparing ISP to incarceration; however, given cost differences between community-based supervision and a secure placement, the authors concluded that intensive supervision was cost effective when compared to incarceration (Aos et al., 2001). Increasingly, research indicates that ISPs are effective despite, rather than because of, intensive surveillance strategies (Henngeler & Schoenwald, 2011). In a meta-analysis of more than 500 studies of interventions for juvenile offenders, Lipsey (2009) found that program effectiveness-in both community and secure settings-was primarily a function of program philosophy and treatment quality. Regardless of setting, programs that were grounded in therapeutic treatment philosophies were more effective than programs that were grounded in surveillance- and control-oriented philosophies. These findings suggest that disparities in the research on juvenile ISPs might be a function of differences in treatment and service delivery rather than the nature and intensity of supervision strategies (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Juv_Tech_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ISP_Juv_Tech_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 138779 Keywords: Costs of crimeCosts of Criminal Justice Electronic Monitoring Intensive Supervision Juvenile AftercareJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationOffender Supervision |
Author: Hawken, Angela Title: Washington Intensive Supervision Program: Evaluation Report. Draft. Summary: The Washington Intensive Supervision Program (WISP) is a pilot project designed to determine whether the principles of effective community supervision - clear rules, close monitoring, and swift and certain, but not severe, penalties for each violation - can succeed with a group of parolees of diverse risk levels in Seattle. WISP includes offenders with longer and more serious criminal histories than is typical of HOPE probationers in Honolulu, which provides an opportunity to test HOPE-style sanctioning on higher-risk offenders. Program fidelity to date has been extraordinarily high, and both individual performances and the level of coordination within DOC staff have been exemplary. Parolees appear to have a clear understanding of the program and are, for the most part, successfully adjusting their behavior to the new environment. Non-compliance has been consistently sanctioned. The workload burden, especially on the CCO dedicated to the program, was very high at first, but has begun to ease. While more time and additional data collection will be required before a comprehensive evaluation can be conducted, evidence so far points toward a successfully implemented program and positive outcomes. Key findings from the outcomes evaluation show that, compared with control subjects, WISP subjects experienced: Reduced drug use Reduced incarceration Reduced criminal activity However, WISP subjects were more likely to be the subjects of bench warrants. A longer followup period is needed for a reliable assessment of the costs of WISP compared with routine supervision, but the reductions in incarceration and criminal activity suggest that WISP will likely yield sizable savings. Details: Unpublished report, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2011/cbriefing20111212_4a.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2011/cbriefing20111212_4a.pdf Shelf Number: 138921 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionIntensive Supervision |
Author: Reichert, Jessica Title: Fidelity to the intensive supervision probation with services model: An examination of Adult Redeploy Illinois programs Summary: Prison populations in America are the highest per capita of any country in the world (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2014). Illinois houses about 49,000 prisoners daily, spending $1.1 billion on corrections in 2014 (Illinois Department of Corrections, 2015; Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform, 2014). Growing public support for prison reform has brought attention to incarceration alternatives, including intensive supervision probation (ISP). ISP programs include increased surveillance, increased surveillance with treatment, and increased surveillance with evidence-based practices (Drake, 2011). The ISP programs examined for this study were a hybrid of the three, using increased surveillance with treatment services and evidence-based practices. For the purposes of this report, these programs will be referred to as intensive supervision probation with services (ISP-S). ISP-S programs have better outcomes than deterrence-based, surveillance-only ISP (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2009; Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005). Research has shown ISP-S programs reduce recidivism by 17 percent, saving approximately $20,000 per offender (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009). Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (Authority) researchers examined ISP-S programs operating in four counties supported by Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI). ARI applies evidence-based, data-driven, and result-oriented strategies to reduce reliance on incarceration, increase community capacity for diversion, and enhance public safety. Since 2010, the Authority has administered grant funding for ARI and offered research, evaluation, and technical assistance to the program. In exchange for ARI grant funding, jurisdictions agree to implement evidence-based prison-diversion programs, such as ISP-S, and reduce by 25 percent the number of non-violent offenders sentenced to prison from a target population. Researchers examined ISP-S programs in DuPage, Macon, McLean, and St. Clair counties and used staff and stakeholder interviews, client interviews, and program data to evaluate fidelity to key components of evidence-based ISP-S. Researchers developed a list of nine key components of ISP-S drawing from Petersilia and Turner's ISP literature and the National Institute for Corrections (NIC) recommendations for evidence-based practices, shaped largely by Andrews and Bonta's Risk-Need-Responsivity model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; NIC, 2004; Petersilia & Turner, 1993; Petersilia & Turner, 1991; Petersilia & Turner, 1990). Researchers used data collected during the 18-month pilot phases of DuPage, Macon, McLean and St. Clair county programs, beginning in 2011. However, not all programs started at the same time and McLean did not start accepting clients until January 2012. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 21, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/ISP%20FIDELITY%20FINAL%2006-16-16.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/ISP%20FIDELITY%20FINAL%2006-16-16.pdf Shelf Number: 139784 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationIntensive SupervisionOffender SupervisionProbation |
Author: Kane-Willis, Kathleen Title: New Directions for Illinois Drug Policy: An Update on Incarceration for Drug Offenses In Illinois Summary: Drug Use among Arrestees in Cook County Jail Of the ten Arrestee Drug Use Monitoring II sites, Chicago (Cook County) had the greatest number of arrestees testing positive for drugs at 87 percent of the sample. - Cook County also had the highest percentage of poly-substance use confirmed through the urine screen at 40 percent, an increase over the number of arrestees testing positive for poly-substance use in 2007. Cocaine - Cook County had the largest percentage of arrestees testing positive for cocaine at 43.8 percent. - There was very little racial difference among arrestees testing positive for cocaine. Blacks and whites tested positive for cocaine in nearly similar percentages (46.2% and 45.7% respectively), though fewer Latinos tested positive for cocaine (33.4%) than whites or blacks. Heroin - Of the ten sites, Chicago had the highest percentage of arrestees testing positive for heroin at 29 percent. In comparison, Washington DC, which ranked second after Chicago, only had 12 percent of arrestees testing positive for heroin. Chicago's test results also represent a statistically significant increase over the percentage of arrestees testing positive for heroin in 2007. - Racial differences were particularly pronounced for heroin use. The percentage of whites testing positive for heroin (41%) was nearly twice that of black and Latino arrestees (25% and 24% respectively). - Individuals that tested positive for heroin were much more likely to have been arrested for a property crime. Forty-six percent of the arrestees charged with a property crime tested positive for heroin, followed by 27.4 percent of arrestees with a drug possession charge testing positive for heroin. Drug Offenders Entering Prison in Illinois In Illinois, the number of individuals entering Illinois' prisons for drug offenses increased 12 percent from 10,436 individuals in 2000 to 11,680 in 2008. The peak year for drug offenders entering prison was 2005, when the number of drug offenders entering prison reached nearly 15,000 individuals. Individuals entering prison for drug offenses have steadily declined from 2006 to 2008. - One reason for the large number of individuals entering Illinois prisons in 2005 is the large increase in technical violators admitted to prison. The number of these offenders increased more than 290 percent over fiscal year 2000 numbers, from 955 individuals to 3,727 individuals in 2005 - Court commitments also increased, from about 7,800 in 2000 to about 9,600 in 2005, a 23 percent increase. - The combination of increases in court commitments along with the very large increases in technical violations from parolees may partially explain the peak year numbers. Sales and Possession Offenders Individuals who entered prison for drug sales offenses declined during this period from 5,074 individuals in 2000 to 4,202 in 2008. The number of individuals entering Illinois' prisons for drug possession of a controlled substance - that is possession of any drug besides marijuana - increased by more than 42 percent from 4,675 individuals in 2000, to 6,618 offenders in 2008. Since 2002, nearly every year, the percentage of those going to prison for possession offenses has increased. For example: - In 2000, 52 percent of those admitted to prison for drug offenses were convicted of sales offenses, and 48 percent were convicted of possession offenses. - By 2008, possessions offenders made up nearly 62 percent of drug offenders incarcerated for drug offenses, while sales offenders made up just 38 percent of individuals entering prison for drugs. - In 2008, 53 percent of those entering prison for drug offenses were convicted of a Class 4 felony, the lowest-level possession offense. The number of prisons entrances for individuals convicted of the lowest level of drug offenses, Class 4 possession offenses, increased by 34 percent, from 4,634 individuals in 2000 to 6,188 individuals in 2008. - In 2000, these offenders represented 44 percent of admissions to prison for all drug offenses, but by 2008, Class 4 possession offenders comprised 53 percent of admissions for drug offenses that resulted in prison terms. - Imprisonment for individuals convicted of cannabis possession, although small in number, increased by 35 percent from 189 individuals in 2000 to 256 individuals in 2008. - Technical violations among Class 4 drug possession offenders that resulted in a new prison admission increased from 279 individuals in 2000 to nearly 900 individuals in 2008. This was an increase of more than 220 percent. Reducing Recidivism - Drug treatment in jail reduces recidivism by about 4.5 percent. - Drug treatment in prison provides a nearly 6 percent reduction in recidivism. - Drug treatment in the community reduces recidivism by about 9.5 percent. - The largest impact on recidivism rates occurs when individuals are given intensive supervision (parole or probation) with treatment, which reduces recidivism by more than 16 percent. Cost of Incarcerating Lowest Level Drug Offenders in 2008 In Illinois, it costs about $61.36 per day to house an offender in prison. The majority of low-level drug possession offenders will most likely spend a short period of time in prison (e.g. 120 days or less). - The cost for an offender to spend 120 days in prison is approximately $7,363. - The cost of imprisoning the 4,379 Class 4 possession offenders (the lowest level drug offense) in 2008 (assuming an average stay of 120 days) was $34,243,453.00. Details: Chicago: Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy, 2009. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2016 at: https://www.roosevelt.edu/CAS/CentersAndInstitutes/IMA/ICDP.aspx Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://www.roosevelt.edu/CAS/CentersAndInstitutes/IMA/ICDP.aspx Shelf Number: 147871 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersDrug PolicyDrug ReformIntensive Supervision |
Author: Bartels, Lorana Title: Literature Review on Intensive Supervision Orders: A Report Prepared for the Act Justice and Community Safety Directorate Summary: This report presents a literature review in relation to intensive supervision orders (variously defined) in six countries, as follows: - Intensive Supervision Orders in New Zealand; - Conditional Sentences of Imprisonment in Canada; - Various forms of Intensive Supervision Probation in the United States; - Intensive Alternatives to Custody in England/Wales; - Intensive Supervision with Electronic Monitoring in Sweden; and - Correctional Supervision in South Africa. Each section presents an overview of the sentencing option, including the conditions to which it is subject (eg, electronic monitoring, substance abuse treatment, curfews, community service) and whether these are imposed on a mandatory or optional basis. Information on limits on the availability of the option (eg, by sentence length or offence type) is also considered. The report then presents evidence on the 'effectiveness' of each sentencing option. Due to the variety of information available, evidence of effectiveness is considered to include: - data on the use of the order, including the conditions imposed, and any impacts on the use of imprisonment; - reconviction and breach analyses; - cost-benefit analyses; - evidence of decreases in anti-social behaviour (eg, drug use) and/or increases in prosocial behaviour (eg, engagement with employment); and - research on the attitudes of a range of stakeholders, including offenders, victims, correctional officers, judicial officers and members of the public. The report presents a brief description of the electronic monitoring technology used, before examining the evidence on cost-effectiveness, reductions in reoffending and the perceptions of offenders and others affected by electronic monitoring, especially victims and those living with the offender. This section then explores some of the key practical and ethical challenges that may arise from this technology, including: workload implications; false reports; risk to the public; the challenges of involving the private sector in the delivery of community corrections; the risk of net-widening; and the offender's loss of privacy and risk of stigmatisation. The limitations of the research are acknowledged and future directions in research, technological advances and good practice principles are considered. The report concludes with summary of key findings and some observations on future directions. Details: Canberra: University of Canberra, 2014. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669069 Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669069 Shelf Number: 145087 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationAntisocial BehaviorCost-Benefit AnalysisElectronic MonitoringIntensive SupervisionOffender Supervision |
Author: Center for Effective Public Policy Title: Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences Summary: Isaac Newton was among the first modern scientists to recognize that new discoveries depend heavily on science that is already established: "If I have seen further," he wrote, "it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Giant strides have been made in the fields of public administration and criminal justice by applying science to practice. Evidence-based decision making asserts that public policy and practice should be informed by the best available research and enhanced through ongoing performance measurement and evaluation. Scientific study has demonstrated that recidivism can be reduced when three key principles are followed: - The risk principle suggests that justice system interventions should be matched to offenders' risk level, focusing more intensive interventions on moderate and high risk offenders. - The need principle asserts that justice system interventions should target those factors that most significantly influence criminal behavior. - The responsivity principle demonstrates that interventions are most effective when they are based on research-supported models and tailored to the unique characteristics of individual offenders. In this paper, we propose to take this knowledge one step further: to link the duration of probation supervision to the optimal amount of intervention an offender needs in order to reduce risk of reoffense. The proposed "dosage" model of probation suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk, rather than an arbitrarily (or customarily) established amount of time (e.g., 3 years, 5 years). For many offenders, the research shows that correctional intervention is analogous to treating a patient: too little intervention and the patient receives little or no benefit; too much, and the treatment is ineffective or even harmful. Given this, we postulate that the length of supervision should depend on how long it takes an offender to achieve the dosage target--the type and amount of intervention that research tells us he or she needs in order to maximize the potential for behavior change and that is necessary in order to minimize risk to the public --rather than a fixed term of supervision. Details: Silver Spring, MD: The Center, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2017 at: https://www.fppoa.org/sites/default/files/dosage.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.fppoa.org/sites/default/files/dosage.pdf Shelf Number: 144785 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community Supervision Intensive SupervisionOffender Supervision Probation |
Author: Wang, Joanna JJ Title: Intensive corrections orders versus short prison sentence: A comparison of re-offending Summary: Aim: To compare reoffending rates between those who received an intensive correction order (ICO) and those who received short prison sentence (less than two years). Method: Offenders' demographic characteristics, index offence characteristics, prior convictions and penalties, LSI-R score and re-offences were extracted from the Re-offending Database maintained by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Using logistic regression model with inverse probability of treatment weighting, the effect of penalty choice on re-offending was estimated. Doubly robust estimation and bivariate probit model with an instrumental variable were also used to address potential model misspecification and endogeneity of penalty assignment. As a sensitivity analysis, separate modelling was performed for offenders who were in medium to high risk categories and the prison group was restricted to those with 6 months or less fixed term. Results: There was a 11%-31% reduction in the odds of re-offending for an offender who received an ICO compared with an offender who received a prison sentence of up to 24 months. The bivariate probit model with an instrumental variable did not reveal a significant effect or evidence of endogeneity. Conclusion: These results further strengthen the evidence base suggesting that supervision combined with rehabilitation programs can have a significant impact on reoffending rates Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2017. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 207: Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/113866/apo-nid113866-449821.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/113866/apo-nid113866-449821.pdf Shelf Number: 147729 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Kern County Probation Department Title: Day Reporting Center (DRC) Evaluation Study Summary: In response to the increasing need for evidence-based programs (EBP) to treat offenders, the Kern County Probation Department teamed with BI Incorporated (BI) in September 2010 for the development of a Day Reporting Center (DRC). BI was founded in 1978 and provides a number of services including DRC's, a variety of compliance technologies, and other services aimed towards reducing recidivism. BI currently provides services and products for more than 1,000 agencies nationwide. DRCs provide evidence-based services, programs, and increased supervision in order to reduce participant's criminogenic needs. The initial agreement provided a six-month program to 50 participants at any given time. In October 2011, the CCP approved funding for the BI agreement to serve 100 participants at any given time. On November 6, 2013, the CCP showed its further commitment to evidence-based treatment by expanding the program once again to serve 200 participants. Details: Bakersfield, CA: Kern County Probation Department, 2013. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2018 at: http://kernprobation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DRC-Study-WEB.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://kernprobation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DRC-Study-WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 150449 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Day Reporting Evidence-Based Programs Intensive SupervisionOffender Supervision |