The degree of monitoring and the intensity of services provided an individual should correspond with the risk of re-offending that he or she poses. These risks and needs should be determined by the results of objective risk- and needs-assessment instruments, supplemented with additional information as appropriate. Community corrections administrators should develop workload formulas that help direct the supervision and intervention time and effort allotted to each individual's varying levels of risk and need. Resources spent on early assessment and accurate workload structuring are a worthy investment, ensuring the most efficient use of limited supervision resources in the long run.

Individuals with the greatest risk of re-offending should have the highest level of supervision and services available to help promote law-abiding behavior and pro-social behavioral development. ^[1]   High-risk individuals returning to the community should be required to adhere to structured supervision plans that govern their living situation, restrict contact with their victims and associates, and include monitoring by supervision officers day-to-day activities related to the assessed risk factors. Individuals who have been found to pose high risks also typically have additional treatment needs that require intensive monitoring and may merit priority access to services.

Example: Day Reporting Center, Behavioral Interventions, Inc. and Illinois Department of Corrections

The Day Reporting Center program provides a continuum of intense supervision, monitoring, treatment, and educational services for high-risk parolees (parolees who have two or more prior incarcerations, have served a sentence of 10 or more years, and/or are 25 years or younger and sentenced for a violent crime) returning to neighborhoods in south Chicago. Each parolee begins at the most intensive level and works his or her way down by successfully completing the goals at each stage of the program. Parolees are assigned an individual case manager who supervises an extensive assessment process; developing an individualized supervision, treatment, and education plan; and meeting with parolees one to seven days a week.

It is unlikely that any release strategy can be successful if the supervision, treatment, and community adjustment resources needed to address the individual's level of risk are not available. (See Recommendation e, below, on engaging community support for the supervision strategy.) Halfway houses, day reporting centers and other early release and transitional facilities should be made available to the high-risk population.

Example: Super-Intensive Supervision Program, Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Division of Parole

Individuals who are serving a sentence on a current or past conviction for an offense involving an act of violence may be selected by a panel of Board of Pardons and Paroles members to participate in the Super-Intensive Supervision Program (SISP). Participants are supervised by specially trained parole officers with caseload ratios of 14 parolees per officer. Officers are required to complete 15 total contacts each month, including six face-to-face, six "drive-by," and one home visitation. Individuals on SISP are on 24-hour electronic monitoring and must comply with a 24-hour-a-day schedule pre-approved in writing by their parole officer. They remain in the supervision program until they are discharged from supervision or until the designated Board Panel votes to remove the SISP special condition and allow the person to be placed on a less restrictive type of supervision.

In the absence of additional staff resources, community corrections administrators should establish "on-call" officers or specialized units who are dedicated to supervising higher-risk offenders and that function on a 24-hour basis. Policymakers should be careful to focus these specialized, intensive programs narrowly on those individuals most likely to present risks to public safety. Programs that permit only one or two visits per month should not be considered intensive supervision; restricting the definition of high-risk can ensure the integrity of these programs and maximize the benefit of limited staff resources.

Officers who monitor high-risk individuals should receive training that pertains to field officer safety and should have access to protective equipment to ensure their personal safety when engaging in intensive supervision activities. When possible, they should also have access to specialized equipment, such as surveillance systems that utilize satellite technology, radio frequency home monitoring devices, case management information systems that allow various systems to share data, and portable drug and alcohol testing equipment. Supervision officers should be trained in the use of these new technologies and should learn the specialized skills required to facilitate behavior change.

Policymakers and the public should be educated about the power, the limitations, and strategies of community supervision. (See Policy Statement 7, Educating the Public About the Re-Entry Population, for more on creating an understanding in the community at large of re-entry and people who re-enter the community from prison or jail.) Community corrections administrators should seek to demonstrate how, given sufficient resources, they can meet the risks presented by each individual released from prison or jail with a proportional response and how the risks posed by even the most difficult individuals can be managed.