There is no dispute that prisons are in a state of overcrowding. This overwhelming crowding has created an intense demand for alternatives to incarceration. Despite the reality that probation departments have experienced a growth in caseloads and a cut in budget, “no other agency has been more responsive to the population pressures on prisons and jails” (Clear and Hardyman, 1990: 45-46). One of the many alternatives that have been created is intensive supervision probation (ISP). ISP is a program that is far stricter that regular probation. ISP’s involve an increased number of contacts between offenders and supervising officers, a greater amount of restrictions and rules, and requirements that offenders attend programs and counseling sessions such as Alcoholics Anonymous. Whether ISP is a worthwhile sanction that is more effective than standard probation is a topic that is under a large amount of debate today.

The current ISP movement is not the first of its kind. A previous program was enacted in the 1960’s. The former ISP movement was primarily a series of experimental projects designed to determine the optimal number of clients to be supervised in a single caseload. In the 1980’s a new type of ISP movement began which tried to deal with a major problem still existing today, that of overcrowded prisons (Clear and Hardyman, 1990: 42). A program previously used to divert some offenders from prison, traditional probation has proven less than effective, and ISP is the result of a search for a more effective sanction.

A study in 1985 of probation in Los Angeles and Alameda counties in California found that 65% of the felony probationers were rearrests (Geerken and Hayes. 1993: 555). In fact, traditional probation seemed to work only for those convicted of less serious crimes, and therefore those who posed the least risk to society. However, due to the extent of prison overcrowding, not all high-risk offenders could be incarcerated (Petersilla and Turner, 1990). ISP is a possible partial solution to these problems, but in its current state is not as effective as it could be.

The goals of ISP are to reduce prison overcrowding, increase public protection, rehabilitate the offender, demonstrate the potential of probation, and save money. In having such desirable but unrealistic goals, ISP is destined to fail. It is impossible for any program to achieve all those listed aims simultaneously (Clear and Hardyman, 1990: 47). Administrators of ISP must be careful and honest in their promises. It would be next to impossible for a program to reduce prison overcrowding and rehabilitate the offender while also saving money. If extra funding is needed for an ISP program to have a greater chance of success, then this should be made clear. Broken promises will not increase the amount of support a program receives, or demonstrate its potential.

The new ISP programs have been sold as “tough, strict, and harsh”, as the current attitude towards corrections is today. This fierce rhetoric says that the offenders will be “made” to comply through the use of constant monitoring and strict rules of behavior (Clear and Hardyman, 1990: 46). Though this though talking revived the failing concept of probation, has it really worked? Certain results of ISP evaluations may show that it does work. A study by Petersilia showed that less than 10% of ISP were rearrested, and nearly all of those were for technical violations. However, one must look closely at such results and see what types of offenders were placed in ISP (Petersilia and Turner, 1990: 89). If these were violent, high-risk offenders, the result would be astounding. But if these were low-risk, less dangerous individuals, one would wonder why they were receiving the intensive treatment that other felons were not. The expansion of such alternative programs such as ISP, known as net widening, could be the reason for this, if indeed high-risk offenders were still receiving the same intensive supervision.

One experimenter in California thought a study should be done where the participants were randomly assigned to ISP. It was thought that this would be the most direct way to determine the success of ISP (Petersilia and Turner, 1990). A control group of offenders on regular probation were observed. There were certain rules that ISP programs participating in the study had to follow to insure that the results were as accurate as possible. The participating sites had to agree to:

• random assignment of the offenders
  
• design and implement an ISP program consisting of small caseloads
  
• employment training, community service work, routine and unannounced
  
• alcohol and drug testing, and curfews
• accept adults only
  
• participate in training conferences and independent evaluation

All sites collected identical data for the evaluation (Petersilia and Turner, 1990: 93-94).

The participants were chosen from persons currently on probation that were deemed high-risk and showing signs of failure or revocation (Petersilia and Turner, 1990: 95). Such group of participants is the ideal selection to determine whether or not ISP would be a success. A “high-risk” or “dangerous” offender was deemed one with a high probability of committing a new serious offense. “Serious” was seen as a violent, predatory crime. But that does not mean that those chosen to enter the program are currently violent, serious offenders. Such persons are often excluded from ISP programs because they are seen as an unreasonable risk to the community (Clear and Hardyman, 1990: 48). This is logical, and including offenders with a high likelihood of becoming a violent, predatory person protects society. However, an individual viewed as low to no risk is not the type in need of intensive supervision. The greatest amount of time, supervision and resources should be allotted to the higher risk individuals, and measures should be taken to assure that that is so.

Many of the offenders in the California study had extensive prior records and were in serious need of drug treatment. Also of great importance to the success of any ISP program is that the services and supervision that should be provided are actually and continually delivered. The amount of contacts, both face-to-face and collateral contacts, such as checks at home, school, work, etc., were recorded. The study showed that such checks were numerous and far outnumbered those of regular probation programs (Petersilia and Turner, 1990: 96-99). One of the most consistent findings in previous ISP evaluations is that the programs failed to remain intensive. The extremely stringent rules and requirements that are present at the start of an offenders time on the program are relaxed over time, and intensive supervision probation gradually becomes not-so-intensive supervision probation (Petersilia and Turner, 1990: 96). It is important that such strict supervision is maintained. It is both the definition of the program and the main method for keeping the offender in check. It stands to reason that an individual who knows he might be checked up on at any time and often so, will be considerably less inclined to commit a crime or otherwise violate himself. If so many programs lessen their intensity as the previous studies show, then that is a major blow to the effectiveness of ISP. It is a problem that ISP must fix if it wishes to become what it was meant to be.

Other important goals of ISP are employment, victim and court restitution, and performance of community service. According to the study, ISP was not that effective in these categories. Only one county in the California study did ISP make a significant difference (Petersilia and Turner, 1990: 99).

Possibly the most important role of ISP is its effects on the recidivism and technical violations. The results of the California study were not encouraging. In the six-month follow-up period after the program assignment, fewer ISP participants than regular probationers managed to remain “clean”. Over half of the ISP participants had either new arrests or technical violations. The incarceration rates for ISP offenders were not significantly higher than those on regular probation. However, that is not to say that the ISPs staffs were negligent in pursuing penalties for an offender’s violation. The staff’s preferences regarding the incarceration of recidivists were often constrained by prison and jail capacity, the very problem ISP’s were meant to deal with (Petersilia and Turner, 1990: 100-105).

continue with more on supervision and probation...