NCJ Number
130485
Journal
Criminal Justice Research Bulletin Volume: 6 Issue: 1 Dated: (1991) Pages: complete issue
Date Published
1991
Length
9 pages
Annotation
The intensive probation supervision (IPS) programs in Georgia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are examined in terms of their similarities and differences, whether the programs are actually serving high-risk offenders, and whether the programs are really diverting offenders from prison.
Abstract
The programs were found to differ in terms of the offenders excluded and targeted, the funding source, whether assessments are required before placement, the number of contacts required, and whether the programs involve electronic monitoring, curfews, team supervision, random drug screens, and community services. However, the evaluative literature has not definitively determined how effective IPS is. The RAND Corporation evaluation found that intensive probationers had recidivism rates similar to those of probationers under regular supervision, but that the program serves as an appropriate intermediate sanction for high-risk offenders. Tonry states that IPS programs are achieving goals other than those for which they were intended. Other reports note that intensive probation does not save money due to net-widening in some programs and high revocation rates in others. Nevertheless, it is too early to abandon the program. Thus, Tonry argues that despite the failure to achieve diversion, cost savings, and crime prevention, intensive probation should be recognized as a useful intermediate sanction. Chart, notes, and 28 references