For example, Petersilia & Turner (1990) examined outcomes of intensive supervision probation in three California counties, finding that probationers on intensive supervision had similar rates of rearrest and reincarceration as those on standard probation. According to Turner et al. (1992), persons on intensive supervision—including those on ISR—for drug offenses showed no differences in new criminal offenses compared to those on standard supervision. Similarly, Hyatt & Barnes’ study of Philadelphia probationers (2017) found no differences in new offending between those on intensive supervision and those on standard supervision. A meta-analysis of almost 50 evaluations of various types of intensive supervision programs found that they either had no effect on recidivism or slightly increased it (Gendreau et al., 2000). In contrast, individuals assigned to Michigan’s Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation, which provides intensive supervision combined with swift and certain punishment, had lower recidivism rates than those on standard probation (DeVall et al., 2017). Jalbert et al.’s (2010) study also found that intensive supervision in Iowa reduced the likelihood of new offending by about 25%.
