PHASE I INVESTIGATION OF INTENSIVE SPECIAL PROBATION

• NCJ Number: 54062
• Author(s): J BANKS; R L RARDIN
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 19 pages
• Grant Number(s): 76-NI-99-0045
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: NATIONAL EVALUATION PROGRAM SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE EVALUATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Annotation

THIS STUDY OF INTENSIVE PROBATION PROGRAMS, THOSE OFFERING INTENSIVE SUPERVISION OR UNIQUE FORMS OF SERVICE, EXAMINES PROGRAM STRUCTURE, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORKS FOR ASSESSING PROGRAMS.

Abstract

A LITERATURE REVIEW WAS CONDUCTED, AND OPINIONS OF PROBATION EXPERTS WERE COLLECTED, TO PRODUCE A PAPER IDENTIFYING THE IMPORTANT CONCEPTS AND CONTROVERSIES IN THE DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF PROBATION PROGRAMS. A LIST OF 126 ACTIVE PROJECTS APPEARED TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF INTENSIVE SPECIAL PROBATION (ISP), AND 46 PROJECTS WERE DETERMINED TO BE ACTUALLY ACTIVE WITHIN ISP SCOPE. TWENTY OF THESE PROJECTS WERE SELECTED FOR SITE VISITS DURING WHICH RESEARCHERS GATHERED A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION ABOUT INTERVENTION STRATEGIES, MEASUREMENTS, AND EVALUATION. SOME GENERAL FINDINGS WERE THAT THERE ARE NO STANDARDIZED MEASURES FOR PROCESS OR OUTCOME OF VARIABLES IN ISP, THERE IS SOME DOUBT THAT TRULY INTENSIVE SUPERVISION CAN EVER EXIST SINCE CLIENT CONTACT CAN ONLY OCCUR FOR SUCH A SMALL DURATION OF THE PROBATIONER'S WAKING HOURS, AND THERE IS ALMOST NO REAL COST EVALUATION IN ISP. IN FACT, ALMOST EVERY ELEMENT OF INFORMATION ABOUT ISP IS KNOWN ONLY THROUGH DIRECT EMPIRICAL STUDY, BUT ALMOST NOTHING IS SCIENTIFICALLY KNOWN. A CRITICAL REVIEW OF EVALUATION RESULTS OF THE 20 SITES SHOW THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN PROBATION RESULTS IF OFFICERS CARRY REDUCED CASE LOADS; NO SIGNIFICANT SUCCESS WITH PROBATIONERS RESULTING FROM USE OF SPECIAL FORMS OF PROBATION INCLUDING VOLUNTEER PROBATION COUNSELORS, CLASSIFICATION OF PROBATIONERS, SPECIALIZATION OF TREATMENT, AND DECENTRALIZATION OF SERVICE; AND THE EVALUATION DESIGNS AND IMPLEMENTATION METHODS USED IN MOST PROGRAMS ARE UNSATISFACTORY AND YIELD LITTLE EFFECTIVE INFORMATION. THE KNOWLEDGE BASE IN INTENSIVE SPECIAL PROBATION IS OBSERVED FROM THE INTENSITY OF PROBATION SERVICE, TREATMENT AND CLIENT CHANGE, AND EFFECTIVENESS VERSUS COST. BUT THE PROJECTS VISITED USED EVALUATION DESIGNS THAT MADE UNSCIENTIFIC ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF SERVICE INTENSITY AND ABOUT PROGRAM STRUCTURE. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED.