history of probation
1841: John Augustus bailed out and took responsibility of a “common drunkard”
Taking responsibility for an individual and kept him out of jail → probation
1960s: intensive probation started as an experiment on caseloads (starts getting overcrowded)
* Funding did not match the benefits
* Technical violations increased dramatically
early changes in ISP
- Originally were more rehabilitative based
- 1970s shift of correctional philosophy changed to deterrence, surveillance, zero-tolerance and mandates
- From the late 70s to 90s, ISPs became an incarceration alternative
early ISP vs. probation
25-30 offenders per caseload vs. 100 or more
ISP tend to have smaller caseload (20-30) due to needs of supervision
100+ probation in urbanized spaces Weekly contact frequency with gradual tapering
RAND group: studied/comapred the two; far more controlled w/better methods
RAND Group’s findings
early ISP vs. probation
- Far higher incidence of technical violations → higher PTRs and failures
- PTR - petition to revoke
- Costs increased
- Referred to as “surveillance artifact”
- More you watch someone, more likely they mess up
- Little benefit to public safety
evolution of ISP
(post-RAND)
- Under system constraints, correctional entities were forced to keep ISPs
- Offender classification increased
- Developed triage model
- Classification used inverse relationship between caseload and risk level
3rd model of ISPs
- Actuarial assessments based on mainly static predictors
- Criminal history, demographics, regression models
- Modern applications have switched to computer generated models of classification
- Switch to RNR type assessments with dynamic needs:
- Educational attainment, drug abuse, employment, housing
*
PEI & ISP
Principles of Effective Intervention
* Higher levels of supervision and offender specific supervision for higher risk offenders
* Accurate offender assessment is crucial to success of both RNR and PEI
ISP: targeted treatment –> better results
- Original assessment was largely offense based and not universal
- Considerable damage was done due to lapses in assessment competency
- Previous iterations relied on contacts, drug screenings, and control, control, control
- Produces and optimal platform to deliver targeted offender-specific treatment
- The predecessor and original rationale for ISPS
ISPS
Intensive Supervision Probation with Services
* New approach of implementation
* Social workers, families, drug treatments, etc.
* Provided deterrence based corrections with supplemental services
* Combination of CJS and community-based corrections
interagency collaboration & commitment
ISPS
Team-based corrections and decisionmaking
Steps of program
* Acceptance screening (No violent offenders)
* Phase based
* Graduated sanctioning
* Teamwork in treatment and supervision
Strong levels of commitment and perseverance necessary to implement program
During treatment they take control over your whole life
phase progression
ISPS
- Intake: screening tool from PO, usually LSI-R
- Violent offenders typically not admitted; more likely to disrupt programs
- Phase based progression based
- As phases are completed, terms of probation/supervision change
assessment & reintegration
ISPS
- Assessment indications must be adhered to
- Frequently we use the LSI-R and CRAI
- Community focus and resources whenever possible
- Giving people skills in an environment where they can use them is what’s most helpful
programs & interventions
ISPS
CBT: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
MRT: Moral reconation therapy
* Bi-weekly (every 2 weeks) dosage of therapy CBT, weekly MRT
* Primarily based on significance of getting help, support, and decision making
* Not always required, but can be; often used for serious or repeat offenders
Thinking for Change
ISPS: programs & interventions
- Nationwide scripted & regimented MRT program
- Because its so scripted it isn’t the most applicable to everyone
- Cognitive Behavioral intervention, Substance abuse treatment, and moral “learning”
supervision
ISPS
- Weekly or more field visits in Phase 1
- Weekly or more often contacts in office
- Drug tests, sometimes overreliance on them
- May not be super strict the first few times, graduated punishments
- GPS for highest risk
intervention focuses
ISPS
- Relationship building
- Criminal thinking
- Attitudinal change
- Behavioral change
added requirements
ISPS
Community rebuilding requirements
Rewards
* Bus cards/tokens, restaurant gift cards, reduction in supervision
Sanctions
* Added contacts, EM, curfews, added conditions
primary goals
ISPS
- Behavioral change
- Today’s critical thinking exercise, behavioral change ideally leads to decreased recidivism
- So does it work?
- Not perfect but it does decrease recidivism levels
