IS THERE HOPE FOR
INTENSIVE PROBATION?
Probation intensity effects on
probationers’ criminal conduct
Charlotte E. Gill, Ph.D.
Center for Evidence -Based Crime Policy,
George Mason Univer sity, USA
Jordan Hyatt, J.D., Univer sity of Pennsylvania, USA
Copenhagen, Denmark – May 31 , 201 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 David B. Wilson
 Lawrence Sherman
 John M. MacDonald
 Jerry Lee
PROBATION IN THE UNITED STATES
 One of the most frequently -used criminal sanctions
 83% of all adults under community supervision on
probation (4 million) at end 2010
 1 in 48 US adults on probation or parole
 Probation population is currently declining, but grew
by more than half a million 2000-2008
PROBATION OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
 United Kingdom
 Approx. 233,000 supervised by probation service at end 2011
 Approx. 47% pre- or post-release
 Denmark
 Approx. 8,500 under supervision per day
 3,000 inmates released on parole each year
 Electronic monitoring as prison alternative
 Growing prison population is a concern in many
Western societies
PROBLEMS IN PROBATION
 Poor public perception as ‘soft’ approach to crime
 Struggle to access sufficient funding
 Need effective practices that use scarce resources
efficiently
 Considerable research on programming but little on
supervision
IMPORTANCE OF SUPERVISION
 Foundation of programming
 Potentially the only interaction between client and
agency
 Surveillance and control
 Does this deter recidivism or increase likelihood of
detection?
 Purpose: related to risk and need or determined by
operational capabilities?
INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROBATION
 Increase in supervision intensity should result in
improved outcomes for high-risk offenders – ‘more is
better’
 Earliest interventions: rehabilitative focus
 Bulk of research: control-based programs
 More recent studies indicate increased sensitivity to
principles of effective intervention
 Linkage between supervision and treatment
IS INTENSIVE SUPERVISION EFFECTIVE?
 Intensive supervision programs: cost -saving, but no
theoretical foundation
 Evaluations of programs show mixed results at best
 Studies with a treatment component show promise
 What is the effect of intensive supervision vs.
‘supervision as usual?’
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 How does supervision intensity affect probationers ’
subsequent offending?
 Does program philosophy influence the success or
failure of changes in supervision intensity?
 Does probationer risk level affect responses to
changes in intensity?
 What other program components or offender
characteristics moderate the overall effect of
supervision intensity on crime?
DATA & METHODS
 Systematic search for studies 1950s -present
 Studies of intensive probation compared to
‘supervision as usual,’ crime outcomes
 Focus on most rigorous evidence
 Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experiments using
subject-level matching.
 Searches of electronic databases, agency websites,
and journals.
 Meta-analytic techniques for combining studies.
ELIGIBILIT Y CRITERIA
 Study tests the ef fect of a change in intensity of post conviction probation or parole supervision on recidivism
 Ratio of clients to probation officers (caseload size)
 Frequency of contact
 Frequency of other supervisory controls (e.g. drug testing)




Primary supervisor is a probation of ficer
Comparison condition is regular supervision practice
All of fender characteristics and of fense types
At least one arrest/conviction/technical violation outcome
SEARCH RESULTS
STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
 47 treatment-control contrasts
 38 randomized trials
 9 quasi-experiments
 Almost all in USA
 Most 1990s or earlier
 Enhanced probation compared to supervision as
usual
ISP HAS NO EFFECT ON ARRESTS (RCTs)
ISP HAS NO EFFECT ON ARRESTS (QEs)
ISP INCREASES TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS
(RCTs)
ISP INCREASES TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS
(QEs)
IN ‘REAL WORLD’ TERMS…
 Arrests
 In RCTs, no difference between ISP and supervision as usual
 In quasi-experiments, ISP participants 11% less likely to be
rearrested than regular probationers
 Technical violations
 In RCTs, ISP participants 24% more likely to be violated than
regular probationers
 In quasi-experiments, ISP participants 15% more likely to be
violated than regular probationers
NO EFFECT OF SELECTED MODERATORS
 Overall effectiveness of ISP not altered by
 Supervision philosophy
 Risk levels of participants
 Study characteristics
 Program characteristics
 Sample characteristics
 Degree of intensity change
CONCLUSIONS
 Traditional ISP ineffective under most conditions
 Increases technical violations – increased surveillance?
 Difficulty of implementing ISP in practice
 Lack of knowledge about what to do with the extra time
 Backfire effect of heavy enforcement – defiance?
 ISP with treatment component is promising
 Limitation: difficulty in capturing variation between
programs
IMPLICATIONS: WHAT CONSTITUTES
EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION?
 Key: behavioral management rather than ‘search for
the magic number’?
 Maryland PCS program
 service brokerage and case planning
 primarily treatment-based
 Hawaii HOPE program
 enforcement and deterrence focused
 multiple violators are directed to treatment
 Forthcoming research to further explore the effects
of behavioral management style probation
 Still unknown: effective elements of the officer -client
interaction