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

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Byrne ◽  
Linda M. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Probation Supervision ◽  
Intensive Probation

How Plea Bargaining Shapes Intensive Probation Supervision Policy Goals

1990 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas R. Thomson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Work Groups ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Local Culture ◽  
Organizational Contexts ◽  
External Influences ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Probation Supervision ◽  
History Of ◽  
Intensive Probation

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.

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

1994 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-328 ◽  
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.”

scholarly journals The effectiveness of probation supervision towards reducing reoffending: A Rapid Evidence Assessment

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Smith ◽  
Kim Heyes ◽  
Chris Fox ◽  
Jordan Harrison ◽  
Zsolt Kiss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Base ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Future Research ◽  
What Works ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Probation Supervision ◽  
Methodological Considerations ◽  
Meta Analyses

In response to the lack of universal agreement about ‘What Works’ in probation supervision (Trotter, 2013) we undertook a Rapid Evidence Assessment of the empirical literature. Our analysis of research into the effect of probation supervision reducing reoffending included 13 studies, all of which employed robust research designs, originating in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, published between 2006 and 2016. We describe the papers included in our review, and the meta-analyses of their findings. Overall, we found that the likelihood of reoffending was shown to be lower for offenders who had been exposed to some type of supervision. This finding should be interpreted cautiously however, given the heterogeneity of the studies. We suggest future research and methodological considerations to develop the evidence base concerning the effectiveness of probation supervision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document