Intensified Supervision of Probation Found Ineffective : Crime: RAND study concludes that the program does not dissuade felons from committing additional offenses.

In a bleak assessment of a popular, experimental anti-crime program, the RAND Corp. has found that increased supervision alone does not dissuade felony probationers from committing more crimes.

The study, released this week by the Santa Monica-based think tank, found that adult probationers who were placed in these programs had arrest, conviction and incarceration rates similar to or higher than those placed on probation with routine supervision.

About one-third of those under increased supervision had new arrests.

RAND’s study focused on “intensive supervision probation” programs for high-risk offenders in Los Angeles, Ventura and Contra Costa counties.

These programs involve closer supervision than traditional probation, usually through more contacts with probation officers and unscheduled drug testings. They are similar to programs in all 50 states and are widely viewed as the most promising alternatives to incarceration in increasingly overcrowded jails and prisons.

For the study, probation officials in the California counties allowed RAND to randomly assign eligible probationers--including burglars, robbers, people who had committed assaults and been convicted of drug offenses--to receive intensive or routine supervision.

Advocates of the more intensive supervision expected that “simply watching them more and threatening them more would keep them away from crime,” said RAND researcher Joan Petersilia. “The truth was that most of these people were addicted and this kind of rational approach did not keep them away from crime.”

High crime rates for those under increased supervision may be attributable, in part, to officials being in a better position to detect crimes. “Intensive supervision can turn up more delinquent behavior than routine supervision,” said Bill Forden, chief probation officer for Ventura County.

Nearly two-thirds of the participants in the intensive program were found to have committed technical violations of probation, such as failing to keep appointments with a probation officer or testing positive for drugs. This compared to 49% of the probationers under routine supervision. About 31% of the intensive group were arrested and 20% convicted of new crimes, compared to 28% and 11% from the routine group.

The so-called intensive supervision was not very intense. On the average, probationers in the intensive program saw their probation officers for four hours a month, compared to 15 minutes a month for those in the routine program.

Many of those under routine supervision in Los Angeles County do not see probation officers at all. Supervision for 65,000 of the 90,000 adults on probation here consists of a requirement that they mail the probation department a postcard once a month, telling what they are doing. In any given month, about 40% fail to send in cards.

Only 35% of the participants in the intensive programs received drug counseling, although almost all had serious drug problems, Petersilia said.

“Offenders who received counseling, were employed, paid restitution and did community service were shown to have less recidivism,” committing crimes at rates 10% to 20% less than the others, the study found. “It seems likely that overall outcomes might have been different if a greater proportion of the sample had been employed and had participated in rehabilitative activities.”

However, probation officers reported that there were not enough slots in drug treatment programs to go around.

Even without a strong treatment component, the intensive supervision programs were costly. Officials initially thought they would cost about $2,000 per participant. But the increased supervision, resulting in increased urinalyses for drug abuse and increased incarcerations for positive tests, resulted in an average cost of $9,000 per participant, Petersilia said.

“How much more intensive would it be to get it to work? That we don’t really know,” the researcher said. “But we do know that it would cost a whole lot more money.”

Even those probationers under intensive supervision soon realized there was not much chance they would be punished severely for committing new infractions, Petersilia said.

Los Angeles County chief probation officer Barry Nidorf said the chief value in the program is that it enables his officers to “know where these people are.”

The study, he said, does not change his position as a strong advocate of intensive supervision.

“It tells me we may not make the kind of impact on recidivism we’d like. . . . But we will not do any worse and probably do 10% better than we would have done if they’d been sent to prison,” Nidorf said. He was referring to earlier studies which he said have shown that probationers have 10% lower recidivism rates than people sent to state prison and released.