Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Intensive Probation and Parole

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_23

Overview

Intensive supervision probation or parole (ISP) is a supervision approach that has emerged to deal with serious offenders in the community. ISP involves increasing the frequency of contact between probation officers and clients, placing offenders in small caseloads so that probation officers have more time to spend with their clients, and more recently a focus on identifying individual risk and need levels and directing probationers to appropriate services and treatment. ISP in the United States, and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom, became popular as an intermediate sanction to provide a noncustodial alternative to dealing with high-risk offenders and has therefore traditionally focused on surveillance and control of offenders rather than treatment and service delivery. A substantial body of rigorous research studies has suggested that this approach may be ineffective and even harmful if used with lower-risk offenders. However, programs that emphasize a combination of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Andrews DA, Bonta J, Hoge RD (1990) Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Crim Justice Behav 17(1):19–52. doi:10.1177/0093854890017001004Google Scholar
  2. Aos S, Miller M, Drake E (2006) Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates (No. 06-10-1201). Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-10-1201.pdf
  3. Barnes GC, Ahlman LC, Gill C, Sherman LW, Kurtz E, Malvestuto R (2010) Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: a randomized, controlled trial. J Exp Criminol 6(2):159–189. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9094-4Google Scholar
  4. Bonta J, Rugge T, Scott T-L, Bourgon G, Yessine AK (2008) Exploring the black box of community supervision. J Offender Rehabil 47(3):248–270. doi:10.1080/10509670802134085Google Scholar
  5. Braga AA, Weisburd DL (2012) The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. J Res Crime Delinq 49(3):323–358. doi:10.1177/0022427811419368Google Scholar
  6. Clear TR, Hardyman PL (1990) The new intensive supervision movement. Crime Delinq 36(1):42–60. doi:10.1177/0011128790036001004Google Scholar
  7. Drake EK (2011) “What works” in community supervision: interim report (No. 11-12-1201). Washington state institute for public policy. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/11-12-1201.pdf
  8. Folkard MS, Smith DE, Smith DD (1976) IMPACT intensive matched probation and after-care treatment. Volume II: The results of the experiment (HORS 36). Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London, Retrieved from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors36.pdf
  9. Giblin MJ (2002) Using police officers to enhance the supervision of juvenile probationers: an evaluation of the anchorage CAN program. Crime Delinq 48(1):116–137. doi:10.1177/0011128702048001005Google Scholar
  10. Gill C (2010) The effects of sanction intensity on criminal conduct: A randomized low-intensity probation experiment. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/121/
  11. Glaze LE, Bonczar TP (2011) Probation and parole in the united states, 2010 (NCJ 236019). United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus10.pdf
  12. Gray E, Taylor E, Roberts C, Merrington S, Fernandez R, Moore R (2005) Intensive supervision and surveillance programme: the final report. Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanley D (2006) Appropriate services: examining the case classification principle. J Offender Rehabil 42(4):1–22. doi:10.1300/J076v42n04_01Google Scholar
  14. Hawken A, Kleiman M (2009) Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE (NCJ 229023). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf
  15. Latessa E, Travis L, Fulton B, Stichman A (1998) Evaluating the prototypical ISP: final report. University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice and American Probation and Parole Association, Cincinnati, Retrieved from http://www.uc.edu/ccjr/Reports/ProjectReports/ISP.pdf
  16. Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EJ (2004) Understanding the risk principle: how and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in community corrections. National Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC, Retrieved from http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/articles/ticc04_final_complete.pdf
  17. Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EJ, Holsinger AM (2006) The risk principle in action: what have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime Delinq 52(1):77–93. doi:10.1177/0011128705281747Google Scholar
  18. Mackenzie DL (2006) Reducing the criminal activities of known offenders and delinquents: crime prevention in the courts and corrections. In: Sherman LW, Farrington DP, Welsh BC, Mackenzie DL (eds) Evidence-based crime prevention (revised edition. pp. 330–404). Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Mitchell O, Wilson DB, Eggers A, Mackenzie DL (2012) Drug courts’ effects on criminal offending for juveniles and adults. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2012 (4). Retrieved from http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/74/
  20. Pearson FS (1988) Evaluation of New Jersey’s intensive supervision program. Crime Delinq 34(4):437–448. doi:10.1177/0011128788034004005Google Scholar
  21. Petersilia J, Turner S (1990) Intensive supervision for high-risk probationers: findings from three California experiments (No. R-3936-NIJ/BJA). RAND corporation. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2007/R3936.pdf
  22. Petersilia J, Turner S (1993) Intensive probation and parole. Crime Justice 17:281–335Google Scholar
  23. Piquero NL (2003) A recidivism analysis of Maryland’s community probation program. J Crim Justice 31(4):295–307. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(03)00024-2Google Scholar
  24. Sherman LW, Gottfredson D, Mackenzie D, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway S (1997) Preventing crime: what works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Ncjrs.gov. United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Solomon AL, Jannetta J, Elderbroom B, Winterfield L, Osborne JWL, Burke P, Stroker RP et al (2008) Putting public safety first: 13 strategies for successful supervision and reentry (public safety policy brief No. 7). The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC, Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411800
  26. Taxman FS, Yancey C, Bilanin JE (2006) Proactive community supervision in Maryland: changing offender outcomes. Maryland division of parole and probation. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Towson, Retrieved from http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/PCS_Evaluation_Feb06.pdf
  27. van Kalmthout AM, Durnescu I (2008) European probation service systems: a comparative overview. In: Probation in Europe 2008. European Council on Probation. Retrieved from http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/1_Chapter_1_Comparative_overview.pdf
  28. Wilson JA, Naro W, Austin JF (2007) Innovations in probation: assessing New York City’s automated reporting system. The JFA Institute, Washington, DC, Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/prob/downloads/pdf/kiosk_report_2007.pdf
  29. Youth Justice Board (2009) Youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance (ISS). Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, London, Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/reducing-re-offending/YROwithISSOperationalGuidance.pdf/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Evidence-Based Crime PolicyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA