Predictors of success and failure on intensive probation supervision

The typical primary goal of recent intensive probation supervision (IPS) programs is to serve as an alternative to incarceration (ATI) in response to prison crowding. Yet the history of such alternative efforts reveals that they generally underachieve in terms of that goal. This study suggests that this finding applies to IPS initiatives as well. Drawing on focused interviews with court officials in Illinois, it offers an organizational explanation for the shortfall. ATI initiatives have not adequately attended to the decision-making dynamics and organizational contexts that produce criminal sentences. In particular, they have not taken account of either the resilience of courtroom work groups in resisting external influences on their choices or their resourcefulness in incorporating new sentencing options into the local culture of plea negotiation and sentencing.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Project, 1984-1985

ICPSR Data Holdings ◽

10.3886/icpsr09970.v1 ◽

1993 ◽

Author(s):

James M. Byrne ◽

Linda M. Kelly

Keyword(s):

Probation Supervision ◽

Intensive Probation

Download Full-text

Perceptions of Punishment: Inmates and Staff Rank the Severity of Prison Versus Intermediate Sanctions

The Prison Journal ◽

10.1177/0032855594074003003 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 74 (3) ◽

pp. 306-328 ◽

Cited By ~ 75

Author(s):

JOAN PETERSILIA ◽

ELIZABETH PIPER DESCHENES

Keyword(s):

Empirical Evidence ◽

Background Characteristics ◽

Criminal Punishment ◽

Community Based ◽

Criminal Sanctions ◽

Intensive Supervision ◽

Community Based Programs ◽

Probation Supervision ◽

Intermediate Sanctions ◽

Intensive Probation

Proponents of the newer intermediate sanctions argue that there are “equivalencies” of punishment between community-based and prison sentences and that, at some level of intensity, community-based programs have roughly the same punitive “bite.” There is little research, however, on the relative severity of intensive supervision in comparison to other sanctions. This study was designed to examine how offenders and staff in Minnesota rank the severity of various criminal sanctions and which particular sanctions they judge equivalent in punitiveness. In addition, we explored how both groups rank the difficulty of commonly imposed probation conditions and which offender background characteristics are associated with perceptions of sanction severity. Our results suggest that there are intermediate sanctions that equate, in terms of punitiveness, with prison. For example, inmates viewed 1 year in prison as “equivalent” in severity to 3 years of intensive probation supervision or 1 year in jail, and they viewed 6 months in jail as equivalent to 1 year of intensive supervision. Although inmates and staff ranked most sanctions similarly, the staff ratings were higher for 3 and 6 months in jail and lower for 1 and 5 years probation. The two groups also differed on the difficulty of complying with individual probation conditions: Staff judged most probation conditions as harder for offenders to comply with than did inmates. Our results provide empirical evidence to support what many have suggested: It is no longer necessary to equate criminal punishment solely with prison. At some level of intensity and length, intensive probation is equally severe as prison and may actually be the more dreaded penalty. The results should give policymakers and justice officials pause, particularly those who suggest they are imprisoning such a large number of offenders—not to use prisons' ability to incapacitate and rehabilitate—but rather to get “tough on crime.”

Download Full-text