Public Protection in Youth Justice? The Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme from the inside

Abstract

In 2001, the Youth Justice Board of England & Wales introduced the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP). It was quickly hailed as the most robust community-based sanction available for the most serious and persistent young offenders. However, it has been dogged by high reconviction rates. This paper undertakes first a review of the international evidence base for the effectiveness of all types of intensive supervision, before focusing specifically on its effectiveness within youth justice. It then presents our findings from fieldwork (participant observation, interviews and questionnaires) carried out within two Youth Offending Teams, comparing the views of supervisors and the supervised young offenders. The conclusions show that ISSP is not founded on sound evidence. Our own evidence suggests a number of reasons why ISSP does not work, and is not likely to, in its present form. Most importantly, it is clear that ISSP cannot provide the level of public protection claimed with such a severe offending group, and therefore does not aid the realistic promotion of greater use of community sentences. The article makes suggestions for an alternative approach to dealing with serious and persistent offenders in the community, based on the views of the young offenders subject to ISSP and the staff who supervise them.

Keywords

public protection youth justice intensive supervision effectiveness young offenders' views staff views

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altschuler

(1998). Intermediate sanctions and community treatment for serious and violent juvenile offenders. In Loeber

Farrington

(Eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions (pp. 367–385). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Andrews

(1995). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct and Effective Treatment. In McGuire

(Ed.), What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice (pp. 35–61). Chichester: Wiley.

Audit Commission. (1996). Misspent Youth: Young People and Crime. London: author.

Baker

Jones

Roberts

Merrington

(2002). Validity and Reliability of Asset: Findings from the First Two Years of the Use of Asset. Oxford: Probation Studies Unit, Centre for Criminological Research.

Barton

W. H.

Butts

J. A.

(1990). Viable options: Intensive supervision programs for juvenile delinquents. Crime and Delinquency, 36(2), 238–256.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1995). Intensive Community Supervision for Young Offenders: Outcomes, Process and Cost. Cambridge: Institute of Criminology.

Brownlee

(1995). Intensive Probation with Young Adult Offenders: A Short Reconviction Study. British Journal of Criminology, 35(4), 599–612.

Brownlee

I. D.

Joanes

(1993). Intensive Probation for Young Adult Offenders: Evaluating the Impact of a Non-Custodial Sentence. British Journal of Criminology, 33, 216–230.

Burnett

Appleton

(2004). Joined-up Services to Tackle Youth Crime. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 34–54.

10.

Byrne

(1990). The future of intensive probation supervision and the new intermediate sanctions. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 6–41.

11.

Canton

Eadie

(2005). Enforcement. In Bateman

Pitts

(Eds.), The RHP Companion to Youth Justice (pp. 144–150). Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.

12.

Carlile Inquiry. (2006). Children in the Secure Estate: An Independent Inquiry Resolution: News from the Restorative Justice Consortium. London: Howard League.

13.

Chapman

Hough

(1998). Evidence Based Practice: A Guide to Effective Practice. London: Home Office.

14.

Clear

Flynn

Shapiro

(1987). Intensive supervision in probation: A comparison of three projects. In McCarthy

(Ed.), Intermediate Punishments: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement and Electronic Surveillance (pp. 31–50). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

15.

Cook

Campbell

(1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

16.

Corbett

R. P.

Petersilia

(1994). Up to speed: A review of research for practitioners. Federal Probation, 58(3), 51–56.

17.

Ellis

(2000). Enforcement Policy and Practice: Evidence-Based or Rhetoric Based? Criminal Justice Matters, 39, 6–7.

18.

Ellis

Boden

(2005). Is there a unifying professional culture in Youth Offending Teams? A research note. British Society of Criminology 2004 (Vol. 7) Conference Proceedings.

19.

Ellis

Hedderman

Mortimer

(1996). Enforcing community sentences: Supervisors' perspectives on ensuring compliance and dealing with breach (Home Office Research Study 158). London: Home Office.

20.

Ellis

Underdown

(1998). Strategies for Effective Offender Supervision. London: Home Office.

21.

Ellis

Winstone

(2002). The policy impact of a survey of programme evaluations in England and Wales: Towards a new corrections-industrial complex? In McGuire

(Ed.), Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective programmes and policies (pp. 333–358). Chichester: John Wiley.

22.

Enos

Homan

J. E.

Carroll

M. E.

(1999). Alternative Sentencing: Electronically Monitored Correctional Supervision (2nd ed.). Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall.

23.

Faze

Benning

Danesh

(2005). Suicides in male prisoners in England and Wales 1978–2003. The Lancet, 366, 1301–1302.

24.

Folkard

M. S.

Smith

D. E.

Smith

D. D.

(1976). IMPACT: Intensive Matched Probation and After-Care Treatment (Vol. 2) (Home Office Research Study 36). London: HMSO.

25.

Friendship

Street

Cann

Harper

(2004). Introduction: The policy context and assessing the evidence. In Harper

Chitty

(Eds.), The impact of corrections on re-offending: A review of ‘what works’ (2nd ed.) (Home Office Research Study 291). London: Home Office.

26.

Fulton

Latessa

E. J.

Stichman

Travis

L. F.

(1997). The State of ISP: Research and Policy Implications. Federal Probation, 61(4), 65–75.

27.

Gendreau

Goggin

Cullen

F. T.

Andrews

D. A.

(2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(3), 10–13.

28.

Gibb

Ford

(2005, October 28). Row over tagging after fresh youth crime spree. The Times, p. 12.

29.

Goldson

(2006). Damage, Harm and Death in Child Prisons in England and Wales: Questions of Abuse and Accountability. Howard Journal, 45(5), 449–467.

30.

Goodstein

Sontheimer

(1997). The implementation of an intensive aftercare program for serious juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 24(3), 332–359.

31.

Gray

Roberts

Merrington

Waters

Fernandez

Hayward

(2005). ISSP: The Final Report. London: Youth Justice Board.

32.

Green

Grove

Martin

(2005). Crime and Civil Society, can we become more law abiding people? London: CIVITAS: The Institute for the Study of Civil Society.

33.

Hearnden

Millie

(2004). Does tougher enforcement lead to lower reconviction? Probation Journal, 51(1), 48–58.

34.

Hedderman

Hough

(2004). Getting tough or being effective: What matters? In Mair

(Ed.), What Matters in Probation (pp. 146–169). Devon: Willan.

35.

HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2005). Inquiry into the supervision of Peter Williams by Nottingham City Youth Offending Team. Retrieved August 13, 2007 from http://inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmiprobation/inspect_reports/serious-further-offences/peterwilliamsenquiry.pdf?view=Binary.

36.

Home Office. (2002). Justice for All. (Cm 5563). London: HMSO.

37.

Land

K. C.

McCall

P. L.

Williams

J. R.

(1990). Something that works in Juvenile Justice: An evaluation of the North Carolina court counsellors' intensive protective supervision randomized experimental project, 1987–1989. Evaluation Review, 14(6), 574–606.

38.

Little

Kogan

Bullock

Van der Lann

(2004). ISSP: An experiment in multi-systemic responses to persistent young offenders known to children's services. British Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 225–240.

39.

Mair

Lloyd

Nee

Sibbitt

(1993). Intensive Probation in England and Wales: An Evaluation (Home Office Research Study 133). London: HMSO.

40.

Matza

(1969). Becoming Deviant. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

41.

Maynard

(2007, July 11). Sex beast raped girl days after being freed. Daily Express.

42.

Moore

(2007). Adult offenders' perceptions of their underlying problems: Findings from the OASys self-assessment questionnaire (Home Office Findings 284). London: Home Office, Development and Statistics Directorate.

43.

Moore

Gray

Roberts

Merrington

Waters

Fernandez

(2004). ISSP: The Initial Report, Summary. London: Youth Justice Board.

44.

Moore

Gray

Roberts

Taylor

Merrington

(2006). Managing Persistent and Serious Offenders in the Community. Devon: Willan Publishing.

45.

Muncie

(2004). Youth and Crime. London: Sage.

46.

Nee

Ellis

(2005). Treating Offending Children: What Works? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 1–16.

47.

Neustatter

(2002). Prison can be the right place for kids. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.newstatesman.com/200208190006.

48.

Partridge

Harris

Abram

Scholes

(2005). The Intensive Control and Change Programme Pilots: A Study of Implementation in the First Year (Home Office Online Report 48/05). London: Home Office.

49.

Pearson

(1987). Final report of research in New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program. Rutgers University, NJ: Institute for Criminological Research.

50.

Petersilia

(1998). A Decade of Experimenting with Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned? Federal Probation, 62(2), 3–9.

51.

Petersilia

Turner

(1990). Intensive Supervision for High-Risk Probationers: Findings from Three Californian Experiments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

52.

Petersilia

Turner

Deschenes

(1992). Intensive Supervision Programs for Drug Offenders. In Byrne

J. M.

Lurigio

A. J.

Petersilia

(Eds.), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

53.

Roberts

C. H.

(1989). Hereford & Worcester Young Offender Project First Evaluation Report. University of Oxford, Department of Social and Administrative Studies.

54.

Robson

(2002). Real World Research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

55.

Sherman

L. W.

Gottfredson

MacKenzie

Eck

Reuter

Bushway

(1997). Preventing Crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising: A report to the United States Congress. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

56.

Shute

(2007). Research Summary 4: Satellite Tracking of Offenders: A Study of the Pilots in England and Wales. London: Department of Justice.

57.

Slack

(2007). 1,000 danger convicts are set free without tags. Retrieved July 13^th, 2009, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469851/1-000-danger-convicts-set-free-tags.html.

58.

Smith

(2003). Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy, Practice. Devon: Willan.

59.

Smith

(2007). Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy, Practice (2nd ed.). Devon: Willan.

60.

Solomon

Garside

(2008). Ten years of Labour's youth justice reforms: An independent audit. King's College London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

61.

Stephenson

Giller

Brown

(2007). Effective Practice in Youth Justice. Devon: Willan.

62.

Stone

S. B.

Fulton

B. A.

(1995). Achieving public safety through rehabilitation and reintegration: The promise of a new ISP. In Smykla

J. O.

Selke

W. L.

(Eds.), Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s (pp. 115–134). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

63.

Sutherland

Taylor

Gray

Merrington

Roberts

(2007). Piloting 12-month ISSP, Evaluation and Research Findings. London: Youth Justice Board.

64.

Turner

Petersilia

(1992). Focusing on high-risk parolees: An experiment to reduce commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(1), 34–61.

65.

Ward

Stewart

(2003). Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9(2), 125–143.

66.

Weibush

R. G.

(1993). Juvenile intensive supervision: The impact on felony offenders diverted from institutional placement. Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 68–89.

67.

Weibush

R. G.

Wagner

McNulty

Wang

T. N.

(2005). Implementation and outcome evaluation of the Intensive Aftercare Program: Final report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

68.

Whelan

(2007). Opinion: Prison can be the answer. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2007/05/03/104347/opinion-prison-can-be-the-answer.html.

69.

Whiting

Cuppleditch

(2006). Re-offending of Juveniles: Results from the 2004 Cohort. London: Home Office.

70.

Youth Justice Board. (2002). Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP): An Option for Dealing with Prolific and Serious Young Offenders (leaflet). London: Youth Justice Board.

71.

Youth Justice Board. (2003). Corporate and Business Plan 2003/04 to 2005/06. London: author.

72.

Youth Justice Board. (2004, September 14). Robust community programme for young offenders to go nationwide, ISSP: Marked reduction in both frequency and seriousness of offending (press release). London: author.

73.

Youth Justice Board. (2007). Annual Report and Accounts 2006/07. London: author.