Intensive Probation Supervision

First becoming popular in the 1980s, intensive probation supervision (IPS)—also known as intensive supervision program (ISP)—is one of the most widely administered intermediate sanctions in the United States. Prior to that time, offenders were either incarcerated or given ordinary probation. This correctional dichotomy often resulted in sentencing that was too harsh or too lenient. Offenders whose crimes and criminality did not warrant prison were placed behind bars, while offenders whose crimes and criminality deserved stronger punishment were given probation. Compared to other criminal penalties, IPS is harsher and more restrictive than regular probation but less so than prison.

The first IPS programs were developed in the 1960s as experimental projects designed to determine the number of clients most optimally supervised in a single caseload. The first IPSs were actually smaller, experimental caseloads (15–35 offenders) that were compared to larger, standard-sized caseloads (75–150 offenders). The experiment examined whether a smaller caseload would allow for more intensive supervision of any one case and whether this enhanced supervision would increase the chances of successful outcomes. However, these early projects showed that client supervision levels did not differ greatly from those of larger caseloads, nor did close contact guarantee greater success (Clear and Hardyman 1990).

Current IPS programs were created in response to crowding in U.S. prisons and jails. As the correctional population grew, institutional crowding forced the courts to place more felons on probation or to give them early release from prison. IPS programs were designed to reduce prison crowding, to save money, and to protect [Page 909]public safety, while providing a punishment more punitive and intrusive than ordinary probation. As identified by Byrne, Lurigo, and Petersilia (1992), there are four primary goals of IPS and other intermediate sanctions:

• 1.
  to save taxpayers money by providing cost-effective alternatives to incarceration for prison- and jail-bound offenders;
• 2.
  to deter offenders (specifically) and the public (generally) from crime;
• 3.
  to protect the community by exerting more control (than does traditional probation) over offender behavior; and
• 4.
  to rehabilitate offenders by using mandatory treatment requirements, which are then reinforced by mandatory substance abuse testing and the swift revocation of violators' privileges.