Juvenile Intensive Supervision: The Impact on Felony Offenders Diverted From Institutional Placement

• NCJ Number: 140440
• Journal: Crime & Delinquency Volume: 39 Issue: 1 Dated: special issue (January 1993) Pages: 68-89
• Author(s): R G Wiebush
• Date Published: 1993
• Length: 22 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Ohio Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study examined the 18-month recidivism of juvenile felony offenders in Lucas County (Ohio) who were placed into an intensive supervision program in lieu of commitment to an institution.

Abstract

The Lucas County Intensive Supervision Unit (ISU) is designed to serve as an alternative to Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) commitment for nonviolent felony offenders. Implemented in 1987 to divert 20 percent of youth sentenced to DYS annually, the ISU employs small caseloads, frequent offender contacts, evening and weekend surveillance, various control measures (house arrest, random drug tests, and hourly school monitoring), mandated community service, and offender involvement in a wide range of treatment services. The ISU incorporates a postsentencing selection mechanism to ensure the program serves only those who would otherwise be incarcerated. A quasiexperimental design was used to compare outcomes of ISU participants with those of youth incarcerated and then released to parole and with a group of felony offenders who were handled on regular probation. The ISU handled youth who were clearly serious juvenile offenders and successfully delivered on its promise to provide an intensive alternative. Counselors had face-to- face contact with each ISU youth about 6 times per month and had an additional 7 contacts monthly with parents. Surveillance staff provided an additional 10 contacts per youth each month. The ISU was able to avoid the human costs of incarceration for over half the program participants. In addition, ISU youth had recidivism outcomes that were no worse than those of youth incarcerated in DYS and then released to parole supervision. In general, the results indicate that intensive supervision is clearly an effective alternative to incarceration, but that intensive supervision cost-effectiveness is difficult to achieve without large- scale diversion. An appendix lists offense categories and seriousness weights. 37 references, 9 notes, and 6 tables