The document discusses intensive supervision probation (ISP) programs for juvenile offenders. ISP programs involve 4 phases of supervision with decreasing levels of monitoring over time. The goals of ISP programs are to protect the community, hold offenders accountable, and provide treatment. Participants must comply with requirements like attending school/work, community service, drug tests, and living in approved locations. While boot camps and traditional probation are ineffective, research shows mixed results on the effectiveness of ISP programs at reducing recidivism compared to incarceration.

1. Intensive Supervision Probation
INTENSIVE SUPERVISION
PROBATION
Traditional Incapacitation in Michigan
Miracle Anderson CJ
#304 01

2. INTENSIVE SUPERVISION
PROBATION
 The Intensive Supervision Probation section (ISP) is the offender’s
last chance at probation while still providing protection for the public.
The primary function of the ISP is to provide intense supervision of
offenders under conditions established by the Juvenile Court (Walker,
2003). It is also a community based sentencing option for juvenile
offenders with high needs such as, mental health issues, depression
and other stress related illnesses.

3. FOUR PHASES
 Phase 1 is a minimum of one  Phase 2 is a minimum of four
month. The juvenile offender will months. The Juvenile Intensive
be placed on monitored house Officer will monitor the juvenile
arrest. It will include assessments with four face to face contacts per
week with additional procedures
to identify the juvenile’s needs in
such as random drug test,
terms of competency, mental
monitoring school attendance, and
health and educational services.
curfew compliance.

4. CONT…
 Phase 3 is a minimum of one  The last phase is a maximum of
nine months in which the probationer
month. It includes face to face will be transferred to a court services
contacts, approximately two officer handling a regular caseload. This
level is based on transfers supervision
contacts per week, random
to the juvenile and the family
testing and random visits. supervision and will decrease as
warranted based on the offender’s
behavior. (South Dakota Unified
Judicial System, 2009).

5. JUVENILE JUSTICE
Some of the Goals of the Juvenile Justice System are:
 To protect the community
 To hold delinquent youths accountable
 To provide treatment and positive role models
 “Balanced approach” to corrections

6. REQUIREMENTS
What do the participants have to do?
Participants in the JIPS program must comply with several specific conditions
including:
Participating in one or more of the following activities for not less than 32 hours
each week:
•school, •a court-ordered treatment program,
•employment •supervised community service work
•Paying victim restitution and a monthly probation fee.
•Living in a location approved by the JIPS team.
•Remaining at home except to go to work, school, perform community service, or
participate in special activities as approved by the probation officer.
•Submitting to drug and alcohol tests when required by the JIPS team.
•Completing goals and expectations set by the court.

7. Evidence suggests that scared straight programs are not effective. A meta-analysis of 9
programs funded by the Campbell Collaboration found that these programs cause more
harm than doing nothing and lead to increased rates of delinquency and arrests amongst
participants131. This is very strong evidence against the effectiveness of scared straight
programs.
In the WSIPP 2009 cost-benefit analysis which covered ten evaluations of Scared Straight
programs, Scared Straight programs were found to increase reoffending by 6.1%. Further,
this type of program was calculated to result in a net loss to taxpayers of $5,630 per
program participant which translates to a taxpayer loss of $92.83 for every dollar marginal
spent on the program

8. BOOT CAMPS INEFFECTIVE
 Boot Camps
 Boot Camps are specially structured residential institutions which function
along military lines. The track record of boot camps in reducing recidivism is poor.
In a recent evaluation, “scared straight” programs, boot camps were the only
programs to have a mean negative impact163.

9. TRADITIONAL PROBATION INEFFECTIVE
Empirical evidence suggests that traditional probation is not effective in itself
in reducing crime. For in reducing recidivism165. One of
the most commonly cited reasons for the relative ineffectiveness of traditional
probation programs is the heavy caseloads of probation officers.

10. Research has found that ISPs are more effective than incarceration in reducing
recidivism168. However, other research has found that ISPs resulted in no
reduction in recidivism and produced greater costs associated with staff
numbers, drug testing, and increased demand on imprisonment services for
technical violations169. However, there is some evidence that probation can be
successful if combined with other therapeutic measures such as MST or FFT
(ECPN 2006, OJJDP 2009).

11. INCARCERATION RATE