Intensive Supervision in a Rural County: Diversion and Outcome (From Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s, P 153-169, 1995, John Ortiz Smykla and William L Selke, eds. -- See NCJ-167581)

• NCJ Number: 167589
• Author(s): S Haas; E J Latessa
• Date Published: 1995
• Length: 17 pages
• Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This paper presents the methodology and findings of an evaluation of an intensive supervision program in Clermont County, Ohio.

Abstract

A sample of intensive and regular probationers were selected and analyzed to determine whether any significant differences existed between the two groups in terms of classification and program outcome. The research focused on offender diversion and public safety. Also, issues that are specific to the operation of intensive probation supervision in a small rural community are discussed. The Clermont County Adult Probation Department established intensive probation in December 1989. The program accepts only those offenders who are considered too "high-risk" for regular probation; these include offenders revoked from regular probation, shock probationers, offenders with amended sentences, and offenders who would normally be incarcerated. A quasi-experiment was conducted to measure the success rate of intensive supervision participants, the program's diversionary impact, and the program's ability to ensure public safety. The experimental group consisted of all felony probationers under intensive supervision from the inception of the program in December 1989 through March 1993. The average time under supervision for both groups was nearly 18 months. The comparison group consisted of a random sample of felony probationers supervised under regular probation during the same time period. Data on the population survey of intensive probation supervision and the sample of regular probationers were collected from the probation department's files and included the probationers' background characteristics, criminal history, risk assessment, and outcome status. The population contained 260 probationers. Of these, 166 were under intensive supervision, and 94 were supervised on regular probation. The findings show that the intensive supervision caseload contains probationers with more serious criminal histories than the sample of regular probationers. Thus, the program apparently is assigning appropriate cases to intensive supervision and succeeding in diverting offenders from prison. There were no significant differences in the number of felony arrests, convictions, or completion rates for the groups. A high percentage of both groups was classified as successful. Study limitations are discussed. 7 tables and 4 notes