About the Report The Report, Part II: Review of the Re-Entry Process:

chapters and policy statements:
About the Report of the Re-Entry Council

Policy Statement 25, Research Highlight 2

Little is known about the relationship between parole supervision and deterrence; however, the most effective supervision strategies include a mix of surveillance and treatment.

Supervision strategies that simply increase the level of supervision, such as intensive community supervision, increased drug testing, and home confinement, have not been found to reduce re-offending. [1]   Rather, increased surveillance increases only the likelihood of detecting technical violations. Likewise, there is no decisive support for the conclusion that increasing parole supervision will, in and of itself, result in fewer crimes. [2]   The focus of the parole field has shifted from linkages to services to monitoring and enforcement, even as research indicates that strategies that include some level of rehabilitation or treatment in combination with surveillance techniques more effectively change behavior and reduce crime. [3]  , [4]  

  1. Joan Petersilia, "A Decade of Experimenting with Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned?" Perspectives on Crime and Justice (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1998). back
  2. Joan Petersilia and Susan Turner, Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole: Results of a Nationwide Experiment, US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (Washington, DC: 1993). back
  3. Joan Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). back
  4. Lawrence W. Sherman et al., Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, A Report to the United States Congress (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1997). back
staff