charge, absconding (fleeing jurisdiction), discharged to warrant or detainer, other unsatisfactory reason, 
death, or some other unknown or not reported reason. Unsuccessful completion can produce some different 
responses but can include a concept called tourniquet sentencing. Tourniquet sentencing is where the 
restrictions of a level of sanction are increased, due to non-compliance, in order to force compliance. If an 
individual on probation is not adhering to the conditions of probation, a PO can recommend a probation 
revocation hearing. This bench hearing can lead to an informal admonishment by a judge, an increase in 
the sanctions or sanction lengths, an increased level of control (moving from regular probation to intensive 
supervised probation), even up to placement in a secure facility (jail or prison), all depending on the 
infraction of the condition of probation that has been violated. Many go from regular probation to ISP, in 
an effort to force compliance through increased monitoring. 
Intensive Supervised Probation 
Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) began in the late 1950s,  early 1960s, in California.   Their basic 
premise was to allow caseworkers (POs) to have smaller caseloads and increase the level of treatment across 
offenders. As stated, many promised multiple success measures. However, if an individual who was revoked 
because of a technical violation due to an increase in control, they were not seen as a failure. Rather, they 
were seen as a success because of the way the public was served by the recidivism. However, this went 
directly against the notion that ISPs could save money. Because of these problems, the earlier forms of 
ISPs may have become less popular. In the 1980s, a newer model of the ISP was created in Georgia. More 
emphasis was placed on the control aspect rather than on treatment. Further, less emphasis was placed on the 
reduction of money saved. 
ISP and regular probation are similar, except for the frequency of contacts with POs, the increases in 
surveillance and monitoring, and usually the volume of conditions. Rather than meeting a PO once a 
month in regular probation, a person on ISP would likely be meeting with their PO weekly, or even more 
frequently. Additionally, individuals on ISP normally are submitting drug screens weekly. The increased 
conditions of supervision more frequently include more substance abuse treatment, either in the form of AA, 
NA, or some other residential or outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. Thus, the core difference is 
about the increased level of surveillance and control over the offender. 
ISP Success 
While initial praise of the newer model for its increase on control was evidenced by its rapid spread 
through the States, some researchers questioned their effectiveness. In one of the largest studies of ISPs, in 
conjunction with the RAND Corporation. 
3 They examined the effectiveness of ISPs in reducing recidivism 
and saving costs. In a random sample of 14 cities across 9 States, they evaluated the reductions of recidivism 
against a sample of regular probationers. Their findings suggested that there were higher amounts of 
technical violations, which were probably substance violations, but there were no significant differences 
between control-centered ISPs and regular probation, as far as new arrests. Moreover, when looking at 
outcomes over 3 years, they found that recidivism rates were slightly higher for these ISPs (39%), vs. regular 
probation (33%). Also, there were no substantive cost savings. Other studies have produced similar findings 
as to the effects of non-treatment oriented ISPs. While these findings might be better than prison recidivism 
rates, there were no reductions in prison overcrowding, which was also one of the intents of ISP. 
3. Petersilia, J. R., & Deschenes, E. (2004). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Santa Monica, CA: 
RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP168.html 
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
356