Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme Final Report

• NCJ Number: 212195
• Author(s): Emily Gray; Emily Taylor; Colin Roberts; Simon Merrington; Rosa Fernandez; Robin Moore
• Date Published: 2005
• Length: 154 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
• Corporate Author: University of Oxford
• Sale Source: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
• Publication Format: Document (Online)
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom
• Note: Downloaded November 29, 2005. See NCJ-212194 for the summary report.

Annotation

This report presents findings from the second phase of the evaluation of the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Program (ISSP) in England and Wales, a multifaceted, intensive supervision program for habitual and serious juvenile offenders being managed in the community.

Abstract

The ISSP began in 2001 with 41 pilot projects. The evaluation has been in two stages; the main body of the study was published in 2004 and involved an assessment of the implementation, process, and outcomes of the ISSP model. The second phase of the work, which is described in the current report, extends the reconviction study of the first phase from 12 to 24 months and provides additional insight into outcome factors. This report presents evaluation findings in the following areas: the impact of ISSP on the use of custody; the impact of ISSP on reconvictions, frequency, and seriousness of offending at 12 and 24 months; a cost-benefit analysis of ISSP; the effectiveness of ISSP as perceived by staff, juvenile offenders, and their families; and the development of a typology of juvenile offenders in ISSP (individual and social factors). Over the course of the first and second stages of the evaluation, three major achievements were identified. First, a significant number of multimodal provisions are in place, and a high level of credibility for the program has been achieved with sentencers. Second, evidence of reduction in the rate and severity of offending by ISSP participants is promising. Even if the major reason for the reductions was a natural decline in reoffending, as indicated by regression to the mean, this can be reinforced and maintained under the ISSP. Third, although the evaluation was not able to identify factors that produced better results among ISSP programs, apparently the quality of staff involvement and local differences in resources affected program outcomes. Extensive tables and figures, appended methodological descriptions, and an 80-item bibliography