Charlotte E. Gill , Ph.D.Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy,

George Mason University, USAJordan Hyatt, J.D., University of Pennsylvania, USA

Copenhagen, Denmark – May 31, 2012

IS THERE HOPE FORINTENSIVE

PROBATION?Probation intensity effects on

probationers’ criminal conduct

David B. WilsonLawrence ShermanJohn M. MacDonaldJerry Lee

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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 paroleProbation population is currently declining,

but grew by more than half a million 2000-2008

PROBATION IN 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

PROBATION OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Poor public perception as ‘soft’ approach to crime

Struggle to access sufficient fundingNeed effective practices that use scarce

resources efficientlyConsiderable research on programming but

little on supervision

PROBLEMS IN PROBATION

Foundation of programmingPotentially the only interaction between client

and agencySurveillance and control

Does this deter recidivism or increase likelihood of detection?

Purpose: related to risk and need or determined by operational capabilities?

IMPORTANCE OF SUPERVISION

Increase in supervision intensity should result in improved outcomes for high-risk offenders – ‘more is better’

Earliest interventions: rehabilitative focusBulk of research: control-based programsMore recent studies indicate increased

sensitivity to principles of effective intervention Linkage between supervision and treatment

INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROBATION

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? ’

IS INTENSIVE SUPERVISION EFFECTIVE?

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?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Systematic search for studies 1950s-presentStudies 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.

DATA & METHODS

Study tests the effect 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 officerComparison condition is regular supervision practiceAll offender characteristics and offense typesAt least one arrest/conviction/technical violation

outcome

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

SEARCH RESULTS

47 treatment-control contrasts 38 randomized trials 9 quasi-experiments

Almost all in USAMost 1990s or earlierEnhanced probation compared to supervision

as usual

STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW

ISP HAS NO EFFECT ON ARRESTS (RCTs)

ISP HAS NO EFFECT ON ARRESTS (QEs)

ISP INCREASES TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS (RCTs)

ISP INCREASES TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS (QEs)

Arrests In RCTs, no difference between ISP and supervision as

usual In quasi-experiments, ISP participants 11% less likely

to be rearrested than regular probationersTechnical 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

IN ‘REAL WORLD ’ TERMS…

Overall effectiveness of ISP not altered by Supervision philosophy Risk levels of participants Study characteristics Program characteristics Sample characteristics Degree of intensity change

NO EFFECT OF SELECTED MODERATORS

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 promisingLimitation: difficulty in capturing variation

between programs

CONCLUSIONS

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

IMPLICATIONS: WHAT CONSTITUTES EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION?