This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Turner, S. Articles by Deschenes, E. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole (ISP) for Drug Offenders

Joan Petersilia

Elizabeth Piper Deschenes

This article reports results from a recently completed randomized field experiment testing the effects of intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug-involved offenders. The ISP demonstration project, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, included five jurisdictions: Contra Costa, California; Seattle, Washington; Des Moines, Iowa; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Winchester, Virginia. Jurisdictions developed ISP programs tailored to their own contexts, using the general ISP model developed by Georgia and New Jersey in the early 1980s. Results show that ISP offenders were seen more often, submitted more often to drug testing, received more drug counseling, and had higher levels of employment than their counterparts on routine probation/parole supervision. With respect to 1-year recidivism outcomes, a higher proportion of ISP offenders had technical violations (primarily for drug use), but there was no difference between the two study groups in new criminal arrests. At the end of the 1-year follow-up, more ISP offenders had been placed in jail or prison (mostly for technical violations). This policy drove up system costs, which for ISP averaged just under $8,000 per year per offender versus about $5,500 per year per offender for routine supervision. The article concludes with a discussion of how these results can be used to inform future ISP research and policy discussions.

Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 38, No. 4, 539-556 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0011128792038004009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. D. Warner and J. H. Kramer Closing the Revolving Door?: Substance Abuse Treatment as an Alternative to Traditional Sentencing for Drug-Dependent Offenders Criminal Justice and Behavior, January 1, 2009; 36(1): 89 - 109. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. McSweeney, A. Stevens, N. Hunt, and P. J. Turnbull Drug testing and court review hearings: Uses and limitations Probation Journal, March 1, 2008; 55(1): 39 - 53. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Chan, J. Guydish, R. Prem, M. A. Jessup, A. Cervantes, and A. Bostrom Evaluation of Probation Case Management (PCM) for Drug-Involved Women Offenders Crime Delinquency, October 1, 2005; 51(4): 447 - 469. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. A. Robertson, P. W. Grimes, and K. E. Rogers A Short-Run Cost-Benefit Analysis of Community-Based Interventions for Juvenile Offenders Crime Delinquency, April 1, 2001; 47(2): 265 - 284. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. SEALOCK, D. C. GOTTFREDSON, and C. A. GALLAGHER Drug Treatment for Juvenile Offenders: Some Good and Bad News Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, May 1, 1997; 34(2): 210 - 236. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. R. Stelle, E. Mauser, and D. P. Moberg Recidivism to the Criminal Justice System of Substance-Abusing Offenders Diverted into Treatment Crime Delinquency, April 1, 1994; 40(2): 175 - 196. [Abstract]

				L. G. SMITH and R. L. AKERS A Comparison of Recidivism of Florida's Community Control and Prison: A Five-Year Survival Analysis Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, August 1, 1993; 30(3): 267 - 292. [Abstract] [PDF]