parolees are rearrested within three years , and about 40 percent of probationers are unsuccessful ( BJS , 2004a ).
1
Confronting the soft-on-crime image , and encompassing the bulk of research on probation effectiveness , some probation departments have created intensive supervision programs ( ISP ) for high-risk offenders . These programs are expected to provide more officer-offender interaction and be “ more stringent and punitive than traditional probation but less expensive and coercive than incarceration ” ( Petersilia and Turner , 1991 : 611 ). ISPs were initially met with optimism for their ability to reduce officer caseload size and increase the intensity of supervision to control high-risk offenders more effectively and better protect the public .
2
However , little consideration was given to the high costs of ISPs for probation departments and their potential inability to supervise offenders in high-risk categories .
An analysis of three ISPs in California did not find them more effective than routine probation in reducing recidivism , despite having significantly more contact with offenders . Petersilia and Turner ( 1991 ) found that ISP probationers had higher failure rates than regular probationers . The authors suggest four reasons for this : 1 ) higher-risk candidates were placed in the ISPs ( about 80 percent were high risk ), 2 ) specialized units tend to enforce all technical violations strictly , 3 ) conditions and increased sanctions failed to deter probationers from reoffending , and 4 ) supervision without substantive treatment has little effect on underlying criminal behavior ( Petersilia and Turner , 1991 : 650 ). Petersilia and Turner ( 1991 : 657 ) found that probationers completing counseling , employed , and paying restitution had lower recidivism rates . This suggests that probation interventions that focus on diminishing behaviors associated with criminality may be more important to encourage social conformity than multiplying contacts between officer and offender without focusing on the specific goals of these contacts ( see Gottfredson and Hirschi , 1990 ).
In terms of evidence-based probation and parole practices , this study shows that community corrections officials are receptive to using research to inform community-based corrections policies and practices . Researchers should be sensitive to the problem of goal ambiguity , as well as to other trends that are influencing community corrections . With regard to goal ambiguity , researchers must recognize that probationer success can be evaluated in numerous ways . Probation conditions may require offenders to perform an assortment of duties ( e . g ., community service , pay restitution , fines ), to undergo treatment ( e . g ., substance abuse , anger management ), to maintain employment or other structured activities , and to avoid committing new offenses . This complexity places many administrators in the difficult position of determining what constitutes successful completion . Is an offender successful if he / she is not rearrested ? Should new convictions be most important ? Should probation success be evaluated by the level of compliance with court orders ( technical violations )? For these reasons , researchers should track several forms of probationer success and failure , including treatment completion ( e . g ., substance abuse , mental health ), court order compliance ( e . g ., paying fines , restitution ), and the more traditional recidivism concept ( e . g ., new arrests , convictions , and revocations ).
Furthering the use of evidence-based principles in community corrections will require more rigorous research than has been conducted in the past . To date , no research analyzes the differences among low- and medium-risk offenders using an experimental design . Future research should focus on high-risk offenders by randomly assigning nonviolent , low- and medium-risk offenders to one of five probation supervision strategies to determine if differences in offender performance and cost-effectiveness exist among the five types of supervision included . In addition , justice system researchers need to collaborate with practitioner organizations to develop innovative research strategies to identify cost-effective supervision practices ( Gist , 2000 ; Lane , Turner , and Flores , 2004 ).
Community corrections services offer ways to alleviate jail and prison crowding , deliver serious punishment , and contribute to rehabilitating offenders . Probation performs several functions to properly supervise offenders ( e . g ., home contacts ; surveillance ; drug testing ; collection of restitution , fines , and fees ; community work service ; monitoring of curfews and travel restrictions ; intermediate sanctions ; and revocation ) and offers offenders adequate treatment