Probation and Community Supervision
New Dimensions in Probation: Georgia's Experience With Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) (NCJ 102848, 1987)
This 1987 National Institute of Justice Research in Brief evaluates Georgia's Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program, implemented in 1982 as a pilot in 13 judicial circuits and expanded to 33 circuits by the end of 1985, supervising 2,322 probationers. The evaluation found that IPS diverted a substantial number of offenders from prison, reduced the percentage of felons sentenced to incarceration by 10 percent from 1982 to 1985, and achieved a cost avoidance of approximately $6,775 per diverted offender, totaling more than $13 million in savings. IPS probationers committed fewer and less serious crimes than comparison groups of regular probationers and prison releasees, with only 0.8 percent convicted of violent personal crimes and no subsequent crime resulting in serious bodily injury.
Where this research is used
This page is a research collection: individual facts drawn from the sources listed further down, each traced to where it came from. A research topic brings many collections together into one overview of an issue. The facts on this page feed these 4 topics; open one to see how they fit with the rest of the evidence.
Budget & Spending
Georgia's prison budget rose from $1.53 billion in fiscal 2024 to an all-time peak of $1.91 billion in fiscal 2025, then settled near $1.79 billion for fiscal 2027. Across that arc the money moved toward health contracts, private beds and surveillance technology while the state-operated prison program, food service and education shrank. GPS's own budget series has since corrected several of its earlier headline claims, and the gap between what the state appropriates and what it can show for it remains the central accountability problem.
11,375 data points
Parole & Sentencing
Georgia's parole system has contracted sharply over three decades: the Board of Pardons and Paroles released 5,588 people on parole in FY2025, down 42% from 9,455 in FY2019, and its lifer grant rate has fallen from 21.9% in FY2001–FY2006 to roughly 5% today. Average time served on a life sentence for a serious violent felony has risen from under nine years in 1973 to 29.6 years in FY2025 per the Board's own reporting — 31.1 years by GPS's separate count. The result is a system in which parole eligibility at 7, 14, or 30 years increasingly ends in denial, reconsideration up to eight years later, and release for many only at the maximum sentence date.
12,868 data points
Recidivism & Reentry
Georgia reports one of the lowest recidivism rates in the nation — a 25 to 27 percent three-year felony reconviction rate — but that figure counts only new felony convictions, only within three years, and only among people who survive the window. Georgia's own reconviction rate has climbed every year since 2019, reaching 30.7 percent for the 2022 release cohort even as the state spends more than a billion dollars a year on corrections, releases 12,000 to 16,000 people annually with almost no preparation, and funds vocational education at $172,000 statewide. The evidence on what works is unusually clear — education, vocational training, cognitive-behavioral programming, and transitional beds all correlate with substantially lower recidivism — and Georgia has systematized almost none of it at scale.
12,548 data points
Reform Models & Programs
Georgia operates a statewide cognitive-skills curriculum for parolees, twelve reentry and cognitive programming centers, contracted addiction treatment, step-down units inside its Tier segregation system, and an earned-time credit statute — and the national evidence base for each of those program types is unusually strong. What the record does not contain is current, published, rigorously designed outcome data for most of Georgia's own programs, and the state's direct spending on them amounts to a fraction of one percent of the prison budget. This page sets out what the research verifies, what Georgia actually runs, what it spends, what other states have achieved, and where the evidence stops.
12,091 data points
Key Findings
The most impactful data from this research collection. Tap a card for the full finding, GPS commentary on why it matters, and its source.
The finding
Georgia sentencing statistics from 1982 through 1985 show a 10-percent reduction in the percentage of felons sentenced to incarceration.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
A shift of that size during the program's expansion suggests judges used intensive supervision as a real alternative to prison for some people convicted of felonies, at a time when Georgia's prisons were full.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
At the same time, the percentage of offenders placed on probation increased 10 percent (from 63 percent in 1982 to 73 percent in 1985).
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Matched by the fall in prison sentences over the same years, the rise shows sentencing moving from prison toward supervision in the community, the change IPS was designed to support.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
Preliminary estimates suggest a savings of $6,775 for each case diverted from prison.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
If the preliminary estimate holds, each person kept out of prison through intensive supervision saved the state money even though IPS cost much more than regular probation, because prison cost more still.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
If all 2,322 offenders placed in IPS through the end of 1985 were diverted, considerable savings were realized—more than $13 million.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
The total assumes every person placed in IPS would otherwise have gone to prison, so actual savings depend on how many were truly diverted rather than people who would have received regular probation anyway.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.All Data Points
170 verified data points extracted from primary sources.
IPS program implementation year Statistic
Georgia's Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program was implemented in 1982.
1,982 year
IPS pilot program initial circuit count Statistic
The IPS program began in 1982 as a pilot in 13 of Georgia's 45 judicial sentencing circuits.
13 circuits vs. 45 total judicial sentencing circuits
IPS program circuit expansion by end of 1985 Statistic
By the end of 1985, the IPS program had expanded to 33 circuits.
33 circuits
Total IPS probationers supervised 1982-1985 Statistic
By the end of 1985, the IPS program had supervised 2,322 probationers.
2,322 probationers
IPS required face-to-face contacts per week Statistic
IPS standards include five face-to-face contacts per week.
5 contacts per week
IPS mandatory community service hours Statistic
IPS standards include 132 hours of mandatory community service.
132 hours
IPS supervision team caseload size Statistic
The supervision standards are enforced by a team consisting of a Probation Officer and a Surveillance Officer. The team supervises 25 probationers. In some jurisdictions, a team of one Probation Officer and two Surveillance Officers supervises 40 probationers.
25 probationers per team vs. 40 probationers per expanded team
IPS probationers terminated from program Statistic
Of the 2,322 people in the program between 1982 and 1985, 370 (or 16 percent) absconded or had their probation revoked.
370 probationers vs. 2,322 total IPS probationers
IPS probationers successfully diverted from prison Statistic
Of the 2,322 people in the program between 1982 and 1985, the remaining 1,952 were successfully diverted from prison.
1,952 probationers vs. 2,322 total IPS probationers
Reduction in percentage of felons sentenced to incarceration Statistic
Georgia sentencing statistics from 1982 through 1985 show a 10-percent reduction in the percentage of felons sentenced to incarceration.
10%
Increase in percentage of offenders placed on probation Statistic
At the same time, the percentage of offenders placed on probation increased 10 percent (from 63 percent in 1982 to 73 percent in 1985).
10%
Probation placement percentage in 1982 Statistic
The percentage of offenders placed on probation was 63 percent in 1982.
63%
Probation placement percentage in 1985 Statistic
The percentage of offenders placed on probation was 73 percent in 1985.
73%
Probation increase in IPS jurisdictions Statistic
Jurisdictions with intensive supervision teams showed an increase of 15 to 27 percent in the percentage of offenders on probation, markedly higher than the statewide average increase of 10 percent.
15% vs. 27 upper range
IPS cases similar to incarcerated offenders Statistic
The evaluation results indicate that 59.4 percent of the IPS cases were more similar to those incarcerated than to those placed on probation.
59.4%
Incarcerated offenders similar to probated offenders Statistic
The results also suggest that 24.6 percent of those actually incarcerated were very similar to those probated.
24.6%
IPS probationers still on probation Statistic
Of the 2,322 offenders sentenced to the IPS program, 68 percent are still on probation under IPS or regular probation caseloads.
68%
IPS probationers successfully completed sentences Statistic
Of the 2,322 offenders sentenced to the IPS program, 15 percent have successfully completed their sentences.
15%
IPS probationers transferred to other jurisdictions Statistic
Of the 2,322 offenders sentenced to the IPS program, 1 percent were transferred to other jurisdictions.
1%
IPS probationers returned to prison Statistic
Of the 2,322 offenders sentenced to the IPS program, 16 percent have been terminated from the program and returned to prison for technical violations or new crimes.
16%
IPS probationers convicted of violent personal crimes Statistic
Only 0.8 percent of the IPS probationers have been convicted of any violent personal crimes (including simple battery, terroristic threat, etc.).
0.8%
IPS probationers with serious bodily injury crimes Finding
To date, no IPS probationer has committed a subsequent crime that resulted in serious bodily injury to a victim.
Serious crime convictions among IPS probationers Statistic
Of the 2,322 cases admitted to the program, the following serious crime convictions have resulted: 1 armed robbery, 6 simple assaults, 4 simple battery offenses, 1 terrorist threat, 18 burglaries, 19 thefts, and 3 motor vehicle thefts.
1 armed robbery convictions
IPS probationers rearrested overall Statistic
Of the 200 IPS probationers tracked for 18 months, 80 (40.0 percent) were rearrested.
40%
Regular probationers rearrested overall Statistic
Of the 200 regular probationers tracked for 18 months, 71 (35.5 percent) were rearrested.
35.5%
Prison releasees rearrested overall Statistic
Of the 97 prison releasees tracked for 18 months, 56 (57.8 percent) were rearrested.
57.8%
IPS probationers reconvicted overall Statistic
Of the 200 IPS probationers tracked for 18 months, 37 (18.5 percent) were reconvicted.
18.5%
Regular probationers reconvicted overall Statistic
Of the 200 regular probationers tracked for 18 months, 48 (24.0 percent) were reconvicted.
24%
Prison releasees reconvicted overall Statistic
Of the 97 prison releasees tracked for 18 months, 41 (42.3 percent) were reconvicted.
42.3%
IPS probationers incarcerated in state prison overall Statistic
Of the 200 IPS probationers tracked for 18 months, 33 (16.5 percent) were incarcerated in state prison.
16.5%
Regular probationers incarcerated in state prison overall Statistic
Of the 200 regular probationers tracked for 18 months, 25 (12.5 percent) were incarcerated in state prison.
12.5%
Prison releasees incarcerated in state prison overall Statistic
Of the 97 prison releasees tracked for 18 months, 17 (17.5 percent) were incarcerated in state prison.
17.5%
Low risk IPS probationers rearrested Statistic
Of 12 low-risk IPS probationers, 5 (41.6 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
41.6%
Low risk regular probationers rearrested Statistic
Of 11 low-risk regular probationers, 3 (27.0 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
27%
Low risk prison releasees rearrested Statistic
Of 13 low-risk prison releasees, 6 (46.2 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
46.2%
Medium risk IPS probationers rearrested Statistic
Of 62 medium-risk IPS probationers, 21 (33.9 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
33.9%
Medium risk regular probationers rearrested Statistic
Of 58 medium-risk regular probationers, 20 (34.5 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
34.5%
Medium risk prison releasees rearrested Statistic
Of 12 medium-risk prison releasees, 7 (58.3 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
58.3%
High risk IPS probationers rearrested Statistic
Of 69 high-risk IPS probationers, 24 (34.5 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
34.5%
High risk regular probationers rearrested Statistic
Of 73 high-risk regular probationers, 22 (30.1 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
30.1%
High risk prison releasees rearrested Statistic
Of 47 high-risk prison releasees, 27 (57.4 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
57.4%
Maximum risk IPS probationers rearrested Statistic
Of 57 maximum-risk IPS probationers, 25 (43.6 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
43.6%
Maximum risk regular probationers rearrested Statistic
Of 58 maximum-risk regular probationers, 26 (44.8 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
44.8%
Maximum risk prison releasees rearrested Statistic
Of 25 maximum-risk prison releasees, 16 (64.0 percent) were rearrested during the 18-month followup.
64%
Prison releasees had highest rearrest rate in all risk categories Finding
Prison releasees had the highest rate of rearrest in all risk categories.
IPS probationers had higher rearrest rate than regular probationers Finding
IPS probationers had a higher rate of rearrest than regular probationers, which is not surprising considering the higher level of surveillance.
Recidivism pattern of greater intervention with more negative outcomes Finding
The recidivism pattern that begins to emerge from Table 1 involves greater intervention (e.g., more incarceration, tighter supervision) paired with more negative outcomes. This pattern tends to hold for most risk groups except offenders with high risk classifications.
High risk incarcerated offenders lowest state prison reincarceration Finding
Offenders with high risk classifications who had been incarcerated showed the lowest percentage of reincarcerations in State prison; however, this same subgroup had the highest rate of rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration in jail.
IPS group convicted of fewer serious new crimes Finding
The IPS group was convicted of fewer serious new crimes against persons than either of the other two groups. The most serious new offenses were 4 burglaries and 1 armed robbery in which no one was injured.
Regular probationers committed more serious offenses Finding
The regular probationers had more serious offenses; they committed 8 burglaries, 1 rape, and 2 aggravated assaults in addition to other less serious new crimes.
Prison releasees convicted of most new crimes Finding
The prison releasees were convicted of the most new crimes: 13 burglaries, 3 aggravated assaults, 2 rapes, and 2 armed robberies.
IPS surveillance provided early detection Finding
This comparison suggests that IPS surveillance provided early detection of uncooperative behavior or substance abuse and effectively reduced danger before citizens were harmed.
IPS probationers violated probation conditions more than regular probationers Statistic
Although more IPS probationers violated the conditions of probation than regular probationers (7 percent compared to 4.5 percent), this might be anticipated because IPS probationers were so closely supervised.
7% vs. 4.5 regular probationers violation rate
IPS probationers who absconded Statistic
Only one of the sample of 200 IPS probationers absconded compared to four of the 200 regular probationers.
1 probationers vs. 4 regular probationers who absconded
Cost avoidance per IPS probationer Statistic
Preliminary estimates suggest a savings of $6,775 for each case diverted from prison.
$6,775
Total savings from IPS diversion Statistic
If all 2,322 offenders placed in IPS through the end of 1985 were diverted, considerable savings were realized—more than $13 million.
$13.0M
Incarceration cost per day Statistic
Incarceration costs were $30.43 per day.
$30.43
IPS supervision cost per day Statistic
IPS supervision cost $4.37 per day.
$4.37
Regular probation supervision cost per day Statistic
Regular probation supervision cost $0.76 per day.
$0.76
Average incarceration duration for incarcerated offenders Statistic
Incarcerated offenders averaged 255 days incarcerated at a cost of $7,759.65 (excluding capital outlay).
255 days
Average IPS supervision duration Statistic
IPS probationers averaged 196 days under IPS supervision at a cost of $856.22.
196 days
Average regular probation supervision duration Statistic
IPS probationers averaged 169 days under regular probation at a cost of $128.44.
169 days
IPS offenders under supervision at any given time Statistic
If the 1,000 offenders under the IPS program at any given time had been incarcerated, they would have filled two moderate-sized prisons.
1,000 offenders
Probation supervision fee range Statistic
The fees currently range from $10 to $50 per month.
$10.00 vs. 50 upper range
Probation fee collection exceeded IPS costs Finding
Over the 4 years of operation, the money collected for probation fees exceeded IPS costs and was used for numerous additional special probation needs.
IPS probationer demographic profile: race Statistic
Looking at the 2,322 offenders sentenced to the program through 1985, 68 percent were white.
68%
IPS probationer demographic profile: sex Statistic
Looking at the 2,322 offenders sentenced to the program through 1985, 89 percent were male.
89%
IPS probationer demographic profile: age 25 or younger Statistic
Looking at the 2,322 offenders sentenced to the program through 1985, 46 percent were 25 years old or younger.
46%
IPS probationer demographic profile: age 26-30 Statistic
Looking at the 2,322 offenders sentenced to the program through 1985, another 24 percent were between 26 and 30 years old.
24%
IPS probationer offense profile: property offenses Statistic
Forty-three percent were convicted of property offenses.
43%
IPS probationer offense profile: drug and alcohol offenses Statistic
Forty-one percent were convicted of drug- and alcohol-related offenses.
41%
IPS probationer offense profile: violent personal crimes Statistic
Nine percent were convicted of violent personal crimes.
9%
Drug offenders success rate in IPS Statistic
Drug offenders responded better to the IPS program than they did to regular probation (90 percent success rate during the 18-month followup study).
90%
Females succeeded at slightly higher rate than males Finding
Females succeeded at a slightly higher rate than males, as they did under regular supervision. There was no significant difference in outcome by race.
Discriminant analysis prediction accuracy Statistic
The evaluators used discriminant analysis techniques to predict which offenders might be most effectively supervised under an intensive program. These techniques enabled the evaluators to predict 64 to 68 percent of the variation in outcome.
64% vs. 68 upper range
Risk score most important predictor of IPS failure Finding
The analysis identified risk score as the most important variable in predicting that a probationer is likely to fail in the IPS program. Being a property offender was the next most important predictor.
Risk assessment instrument origin Methodology note
The risk assessment instrument was based on a Wisconsin instrument and had been validated on Georgia offenders as a predictor of recidivism.
Risk score categories Methodology note
Risk scores are (0-7) Low Risk, (8-14) Medium Risk, (15-24) High Risk, and (25 and over) Maximum Risk.
Low risk scores among incarcerated cohort Statistic
The low risk scores for 5.2 percent of the incarcerated cohort confirm this reality.
5.2%
Sample size of regular probationers in evaluation Statistic
A computer selected the sample of 200 regular probationers and 200 IPS probationers matched by age, sex, race, crime type, risk score, and need score.
200 probationers
Sample size of incarcerated offenders in evaluation Statistic
To select the group of incarcerated offenders, newly admitted inmates were screened at the institutional intake centers; 176 were selected. Of this group, 97 were eventually released and tracked for 18 months from the date they were released.
176 inmates vs. 97 inmates eventually released and tracked
Tracking period for comparison groups Methodology note
Comparison groups were tracked for 18 months, and the evaluators measured the number of arrests, convictions, and incarcerations.
Sentence modification success rate for IPS cases Statistic
Some success was achieved: about half the cases assigned to IPS had their sentences modified—a technique that provided obvious evidence that the offender was diverted from prison.
50%
Districts with IPS programs in calendar year 1984 Statistic
Characteristics were analyzed of all offenders sentenced in the 26 districts that had IPS programs during calendar year 1984.
26 districts
IPS program selection criteria Policy
Most offenders chosen for the IPS pilot program were already sentenced to prison, presented an acceptable risk to the community, and had not committed a violent offense. A risk assessment instrument was used to screen offenders.
IPS targeted serious but nonviolent offenders Policy
IPS administrators targeted a particular type of offender—specifically serious but nonviolent offenders who, without the intensive supervision option, would have gone to prison in the jurisdiction where they were sentenced.
Probation supervision fee policy instituted in 1982 Policy
In 1982, the Georgia Department of Corrections instituted a policy that allowed judges to order probationers to pay supervision fees.
Attorney General ruling on probation fees Legal fact
The policy followed an Attorney General's ruling that existing statutes permitted court-ordered fee collection if the fees were used to improve probation supervision.
No legislative funds requested for IPS Policy
No funds were requested from the legislature for IPS implementation.
IPS staff morale remained high Finding
IPS staff have maintained high morale throughout the life of the program despite long, irregular work hours and heavy paperwork. Few have abandoned the program; most who leave the program have been promoted to other jobs.
Probation Officers on waiting list for IPS Finding
Probation Officers who are interested in joining the program must add their names to a waiting list.
Treatment and enforcement functions difficult to separate Finding
One of the most interesting findings of the IPS evaluation is the near impossibility of separating treatment from enforcement.
Probation Officer role in IPS Policy
The Georgia design places the Probation Officer in charge of case management, treatment and counseling services, and court-related activities.
Surveillance Officer role in IPS Policy
Surveillance Officers, who usually have law enforcement or correctional backgrounds, have primary responsibility for frequently visiting the home unannounced, checking curfews, performing drug and alcohol screening tests using portable equipment, and checking arrest records weekly.
Role overlap between Probation and Surveillance Officers Finding
Both the Probation and Surveillance Officers report a great deal of overlap of functions and even a reversal of their roles.
Team approach benefit for staff support Finding
The evaluators report that one major benefit of the team approach may be the support that officers give one another. This enables them to maintain high morale in very demanding jobs.
Probation Officers selected from most experienced Policy
The program's Probation Officers were selected from among the most experienced and best available.
Surveillance Officers hired specifically for IPS Policy
The Surveillance Officers were hired by the Probation Division specifically for the new program.
National Institute of Corrections training grant Policy
A National Institute of Corrections grant supported concentrated staff training coordinated through the Criminal Justice Department of Georgia State University.
IPS as integral part of Georgia correctional system Finding
IPS has proven itself to Georgia officials and has become an integral part of the correctional system.
Community Service Program as alternative sanction Policy
One rapidly growing alternative is the Community Service Program in which probationers perform court-ordered community service under the conditions of regular probation. The Community Service Program is far less intensive and less costly than most and is therefore able to manage a large volume of cases.
Special Alternative Incarceration program Policy
Other alternative sanctions include placement in a community diversion center and Special Alternative Incarceration, which is a 90-day 'shock' incarceration program.
Georgia prisons were full Finding
The prisons in Georgia are full.
Judges among strongest supporters of IPS Finding
Judges are now among the strongest supporters of the program in part because the program has a high degree of accountability. A judge can contact an IPS officer about a case knowing that the officer has had direct, recent contact with the offender.
IPS program considered most stringent in nation Finding
While probation programs with varying degrees of supervision have been implemented throughout the country, Georgia's IPS is widely regarded as one of the most stringent in the Nation.
IPS standards include mandatory curfew and employment Policy
IPS standards include mandatory curfew and mandatory employment.
IPS standards include weekly arrest record checks Policy
IPS standards include weekly check of local arrest records and automatic notification of arrest elsewhere via the State Crime Information Network listing.
IPS standards include routine drug and alcohol testing Policy
IPS standards include routine and unannounced alcohol and drug testing.
IPS counseling designed to help offender become law-abiding Policy
The counseling is designed to help the offender direct his energies toward productive activities, to assume responsibilities, and to become a law-abiding citizen.
Rural circuits more severe in sentencing than urban Finding
In general, sentences in the rural circuits are more severe than in urban circuits.
Georgia lacks determinate or presumptive sentencing guidelines Legal fact
Because Georgia does not have determinate or presumptive sentencing guidelines, the judicial circuits historically have exhibited a great deal of sentencing disparity.
Prison releasees tracked had short incarceration periods Methodology note
Because screening for this group was done in December 1983, only those offenders who were released before July 1984 could be tracked. Thus, those tracked had experienced a short period of incarceration—2 to 6 months.
Early release suggests less serious offenders in prison releasee group Methodology note
The early release means they were apparently deemed less serious offenders. This suggests that comparisons with more serious offenders released from prison would reflect an even more favorable view of the IPS group.
Judges' reaction to minor repeat offenses Finding
Minor repeat offenses, primarily marijuana possession, were numerous. Judges reacted strongly in such cases since they felt the offender had already been given his last chance.
Judges may use jail or work camps for early releasees Finding
It is not unusual for a Georgia judge to decide that an offender may have been released from prison too soon. When that individual appears before the judge on a subsequent offense, the judge will often use jail, county work camps, or some other method of detention and supervision to ensure more direct control over the offender and the period of incarceration.
IPS program initially considered discouraging substance abuse offenders Finding
The finding that offenders convicted of drug- and alcohol-related offenses had the highest success rates raises interesting questions because the program initially considered discouraging substance abuse offenders from being accepted in the program. But judges were obviously looking for constructive alternatives for substance abuse cases; hence staff training and urinalysis capabilities were increased.
IPS cost much greater than regular probation Finding
The cost of IPS, while much greater than regular probation, is considerably less than the cost of a prison stay, even when construction costs are not considered.
Society receives thousands of hours of community service Finding
In addition, society receives thousands of hours of community service from IPS offenders.
Criminal justice practitioners accept IPS as intermediate punishment Finding
Criminal justice practitioners seem to accept the program as suitable intermediate punishment. Judges particularly like it because it increases local control.
IPS as one option on continuum of control Finding
In Georgia, IPS is seen as one option on a continuum of increasing levels of control. Probation administrators, mindful of the public's increasing demand that probation clearly demonstrate appropriate punishment, have responded with a creative range of options.
Georgia's approach to diversion well deserved attention Finding
The attention focused on approaches developed in Georgia for identifying and diverting offenders from prison is well deserved. Georgia has exhibited ingenuity and commitment to try new ways to address a nationwide problem.
IPS lessons applicable to other locations Finding
The lessons gained through Georgia's experience are applicable in other locations that are experiencing similar problems with prison costs and crowding, although the population of offenders who could be diverted may vary a great deal.
No magic formula for diversion programs Finding
There is no magic formula, but Georgia's experience demonstrates that enough people can be diverted to achieve significant cost savings without serious threat to the community.
National prison population passed half million mark Statistic
As the number of offenders behind bars continues to grow—passing the half million mark last year—crime as measured by the National Crime Survey has declined for the fourth straight year.
500,000 offenders
Only one quarter of offenders under correctional supervision incarcerated Statistic
But what is less well known is that only one quarter of offenders under correctional supervision are actually incarcerated. The remainder are in the community on probation or parole.
25%
Alameda County felon probationer rearrest rate Statistic
Earlier research by the National Institute of Justice showed that fully two-thirds of a sample of felons on probation in Alameda County, California, were rearrested within 3 years.
66.7%
Majority of charges against Alameda County felons were robbery, burglary, theft Finding
The majority of charges filed against them were for crimes the public fears the most—robbery, burglary, and theft.
IPS evaluation funded in part by National Institute of Justice Methodology note
The study was conducted by the Georgia Department of Corrections, Office of Evaluation and Statistics, and was assisted by an Advisory Board funded by the National Institute of Justice.
Independent advisory board for IPS evaluation Methodology note
To ensure an objective evaluation, the National Institute of Justice provided an independent advisory board of experienced correctional practitioners and researchers. The board worked with the Office of Evaluation and Statistics of the Georgia Department of Corrections to assess the Intensive Probation Supervision program.
Evaluation consulted probation officials in other states Methodology note
The evaluators consulted probation officials in other States who assisted in formulating evaluation questions about the ease with which the program could be transferred.
Evaluation analyzed all probationers processed 1982-1985 Methodology note
The evaluation analyzed data on all probationers processed through the program between 1982 and 1985.
Constructed samples make conclusions tentative Methodology note
Using constructed samples makes conclusions fairly tentative, but applying truly experimental conditions is often not possible in operational situations.
Criminal activity measurement limitations Methodology note
Such measures cannot quantify the precise extent of criminal activity, but because the measures are applied to each of the various samples, they probably represent a fair comparative assessment. Also, because of the close contact between the Surveillance Officers and the probationers in the IPS program, the actual amount of criminal activity might be presumed to be somewhat less than for those under regular probation supervision or for those released from prison.
Factors analyzed for prison-versus-probation decision Methodology note
To determine the extent to which offenders were diverted from prison, the researchers analyzed a set of factors that would best predict the prison-versus-probation decision. To ensure that offenders accepted into the IPS program were true diversions from prison, the staff screened offenders who had already been sentenced to prison.
Judges declined to amend sentences as regular procedure Methodology note
Many judges—even those who were committed to the program and its criteria—declined to amend sentences as a regular procedure. For those cases, special procedures were developed to screen cases and make recommendations prior to sentencing.
Characteristics analyzed for 1984 sentencing districts Methodology note
Characteristics were analyzed of all offenders sentenced in the 26 districts that had IPS programs during calendar year 1984. The characteristics included age, race, sex, risk score, need score, crime type, and location of the district (rural or urban).
IPS evaluation compared three groups sentenced in 1983 Methodology note
For offenders sentenced during 1983, the first year the program was fully operational, evaluators compared the profiles of three groups: IPS probationers, regular probationers, and prison releasees.
IPS evaluation contact information Methodology note
For those interested in more information on the evaluation of the Georgia IPS program, a complete report will be available in the near future. Call the National Institute of Justice/National Criminal Justice Reference Service (800-851-3420) or contact the Office of Evaluation and Statistics, Georgia Department of Corrections, Floyd Veterans Memorial Building, Room 756, East Tower, Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404-656-4609).
Billie S. Erwin author affiliation Methodology note
Billie S. Erwin is a Senior Operations Analyst with the Office of Research and Evaluation, Georgia Department of Corrections. She has been active in the area of correctional program evaluation and has been associated with the Intensive Probation Supervision evaluation since its inception.
Lawrence A. Bennett author affiliation Methodology note
Dr. Lawrence A. Bennett is Director of the Crime Prevention and Police Research Division of the National Institute of Justice's Office of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Research.
IPS program stirred nationwide interest Finding
Georgia's Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program, implemented in 1982, has stirred nationwide interest among criminal justice professionals because it seems to satisfy two goals that have long appeared mutually contradictory: (1) restraining the growth of prison populations and associated costs by controlling selected offenders in the community and (2) at the same time, satisfying to some extent the demand that criminals be punished for their crimes.
IPS evaluation suggests cost effective and less risk to public safety Finding
The evaluation suggests that the intensive supervision approach is cost effective and poses less of a risk to public safety than does ordinary probation.
IPS reduced risk to community Finding
Most important, the study suggests that in Georgia, the more stringent supervision reduced the risk to the community. Offenders in IPS committed fewer and less serious crimes than comparison groups of regular probationers and those released from prison.
IPS provides greater controls than regular probation Finding
The study suggests that intensive supervision provides greater controls than regular probation and costs far less than incarceration.
IPS program diverted substantial number of offenders from prison Finding
The evidence indicates that intensive probation supervision diverted a substantial number of offenders from prison.
IPS diversion impact cannot be precisely determined Methodology note
The precise extent of the impact of intensive probation supervision cannot be determined, however, because many factors influenced judges' decisions to consider alternative sentences. Nevertheless, in view of the shift toward increased use of probation, the influence of intensive supervision must be considered substantial.
IPS sufficiently controls offenders to limit community risk Finding
The experience suggests that IPS sufficiently controls offenders so that risk to the community is markedly limited. The recidivism rates are considerably better for IPS offenders than for groups under regular probation and for those released from prison. IPS offenders commit fewer and less serious crimes.
Most new IPS crimes were drug and alcohol related Finding
Most new crimes have been drug- and alcohol-related offenses.
Frequent contact effective for supervising drug offenders Finding
Frequent contact during the evening and on weekends and the urinalysis monitoring may be particularly effective for supervising drug offenders.
Sex, need score, race, and drug possession minor predictors Finding
Sex of the offender, need score (a scale depicting the social service needs of the probationer), race, and drug possession each made small additional contributions to the predictions.
Surveillance Officer develops close supportive relationship Finding
Because the Surveillance Officer is in frequent contact with the probationer, a close supportive relationship often develops.
Probation Officer viewed as representative of repressive aspects Finding
The Probation Officer spends a great deal of time with court matters and screening potential cases and is thus sometimes viewed as the representative of the repressive aspects of probation.
Small caseloads contribute to close staff communication Finding
The small caseloads contribute to close, often daily communication among the staff. Thus the probationer's needs—whether for control or support—are clearly identified and the team develops a coordinated plan and follows it closely.
Officers absorbed in attaining case goals Finding
During the evaluation period, each officer became absorbed in attaining the goals of the cases rather than simply performing according to the job description. Roles overlapped and officers exhibited an impressive, cooperative team spirit.
Officers interchanged roles when circumstances required Finding
Some officers interchanged roles whenever circumstances required scheduling adjustments. Staff seemed to function with mutual respect and concern for each other and for the continuity of supervision.
Freshly trained staff seen as emissaries of new intensive supervision Finding
The freshly trained and invigorated staff were seen as emissaries of the new intensive supervision, and their energetic and dedicated response to the program may well have contributed significantly to the program's success.
IPS satisfies public demand for tough response to crime Finding
Intensive Probation Supervision is a highly visible probation option that satisfies public demand for a tough response to crime while avoiding the costs of prison construction.
Georgia Department of Corrections responded seriously to repeat violators Finding
By providing a series of graduated options, Georgia's Department of Corrections has responded seriously to repeat violators but also has shown a commitment to try alternatives to prison whenever possible. Instead of a stark prison-versus-probation decision, judges have a wider choice of sanctions.
Highly innovative staff took initiative to use full range of options Finding
A highly innovative staff has taken the initiative to use the full range of options.
IPS probation fees alone did not support program Methodology note
This does not mean that IPS probation fees alone have supported the program—regular probation fees also were included. Georgia judges impose probation fees on a case-by-case basis.
Probation supervision fees issue outside scope of brief Data gap
The issue of probation supervision fees is of considerable interest—what level of fees should be levied on which offenders; what is the most effective collection process; and what kinds of penalties are imposed for nonpayment—but represents an entire study outside the scope of this Brief.
IPS cost estimates exclude capital outlay Methodology note
It should be noted that these estimates are based on incarceration costs ($30.43 per day) and supervision costs only. The estimates do not include any capital outlay, which could quite legitimately be included because the prisons in Georgia are full.
Community service hours valued at minimum wage Finding
Another benefit of IPS is the thousands of hours of public service IPS offenders provide. If these hours are valued at even minimum wage, the contribution to society would be considerable.
IPS implemented simultaneously with probation fee collection Policy
IPS was implemented at the same time the probation fee collection system was initiated.
Judges advised intensive supervision phased in using fee collection Policy
Judges, who had been vocal in requesting stricter supervision standards, were advised that intensive supervision would be phased in using resources made available through fee collection.
Fee collection exceeded expectations Finding
The amount of money collected from fees exceeded expectations.
IPS program expanded to 33 circuits by end of 1985 Trend
By the end of 1985, the IPS program had expanded to 33 circuits and had supervised 2,322 probationers.
IPS program expansion from 13 to 33 circuits Trend
The IPS program expanded from 13 circuits in 1982 to 33 circuits by the end of 1985.
Shift toward increased use of probation Trend
In view of the shift toward increased use of probation, the influence of intensive supervision must be considered substantial.
National crime declined for fourth straight year Trend
Crime as measured by the National Crime Survey has declined for the fourth straight year.
Sources
1 cited sources backing this research.
Primary
Official report
Key Entities
Organizations, people, facilities, and other named entities referenced in this research.
Billie S. Erwin
[person]
Community Service Program
[program]
Georgia Department of Corrections
[organization]
Georgia IPS Program
[program]
Georgia State University
[organization]
James K. Stewart
[person]
Lawrence A. Bennett
[person]
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
[organization]
National Institute of Corrections
[organization]
National Institute of Justice
[organization]
Special Alternative Incarceration
[program]