U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

ISSP the Final Report (Summary)

NCJ Number
Emily Gray; Emily Taylor; Simon Merrington; Colin Roberts
Date Published
18 pages
This report summarizes findings from the second phase of the evaluation of the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Program (ISSP) in England and Wales, a multifaceted, intensive supervision program for habitual and serious juvenile offenders being managed in the community.
The ISSP began in 2001 with 41 pilot projects. The evaluation has been in two stages; the main body of the study was published in 2004 and involved an assessment of the implementation, process, and outcomes of the ISSP model. The second phase of the work, which is described in the current report, extends the reconviction study of the first phase from 12 to 24 months and provides additional insight into outcome factors. This report presents evaluation findings in the following areas: the impact of ISSP as an alternative to custody; the impact of ISSP on reoffending; a cost-benefit analysis of ISSP; how staff, juvenile offenders, and their families perceive the effectiveness of ISSP; and the development of a typology of juvenile offenders in ISSP. Over the course of the first and second stages of the evaluation, three major achievements were identified. First, a significant number of multimodal provisions are in place, and a high level of credibility for the program has been achieved with sentencers. Second, evidence of reduction in the rate and severity of offending by ISSP participants is encouraging. Even if the major reason for the reductions was a natural decline in reoffending, as indicated by regression to the mean, this can be reinforced and maintained by the quality of the supervision and surveillance provided under the ISSP. Third, although the evaluation was not able to identify factors that produced better results among ISSP programs, apparently the quality of staff involvement and local differences in resources affected program outcomes.