Program Profile: Minnesota Intensive Supervised Release

This is an intensive, supervised release program for individuals released from prison in Minnesota who are at high risk for reoffending. The primary goal of the program is to reduce recidivism of released individuals. The program is rated Promising. The program reduced the risk of general, felony, and violent reconvictions and any rearrests, but increased the risk of a technical violation revocation. All of these differences were statistically significant.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Population

Intensive Supervised Release (ISR) is a community-based program that targets individuals released from prisons in Minnesota who are at high risk of reoffending. The primary goal is to reduce recidivism of released individuals.

In 1990 the Minnesota Legislature directed the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MNDOC) to create the intensive supervision program targeting individuals soon to be released from prison. Eligibility for placement was based primarily on factors related to offense type and risk level. MNDOC revised the criteria for placement in 2018 to be based entirely on actuarial risk of recidivism. (CrimeSolutions rated the program prior to this change as well, see Minnesota's Enhanced Supervision Release Program.) Under the revised criteria, mandatory placement is determined by one of the following criteria: individuals who are designated as predatory with Level 3 by the End of Confinement Review Committee; individuals with a violent recidivism score of 30 percent or higher; or individuals with a sex offense recidivism score of 4.3 percent or higher (the recidivism scores were determined by the Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk 2.0, which predicts recidivism within a 3-year period, and the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-3, which predicts sex offense recidivism within a 4-year period). Placement is discretionary (rather than mandatory) for individuals with a violent recidivism risk score between 26 percent and 29 percent. Placement is also discretionary for individuals who have already successfully completed intensive supervised release and individuals who have successfully completed a work release or minimum program.

Program Activities

Individuals under ISR receive 24-hour supervision and are supervised by a team of four to five supervision agents, which allows continuous delivery of supervision and support. Agents’ caseloads are limited to 30 cases per two supervision agents by state statute. Program elements include house arrest, electronic monitoring, random drug/alcohol testing, unannounced residential and work visits by the supervising agent, mandatory 40 hours per week of constructive activity (which may include work, education, training, and/or treatment), payment of supervision fees, restitution to victims, and compliance with any special conditions of release, which may include treatment for those committing sex offenses, Alcoholics Anonymous, and/or anger management classes.

There are four phases of ISR. Phase 1 includes house arrest and electronic monitoring and requires a minimum of three face-to-face contacts per week. The first phase also includes intensive case management and treatment, in addition to other requirements. During Phase 1, all Level 3 Predatory Offender Registration (POR) persons who committed a sex offense are subjected to GPS monitoring for a minimum of 60 days. During Phase 2, house arrest and face-to-face contact requirements are modified to reflect an individual’s progress. But at least two face-to-face contacts per week are still required. Intensive case management may still be provided, including referrals to treatment. Phase 3 replaces house arrest with a curfew, and one face-to-face contact is required weekly. Phases 1, 2, and 3 each last about 4 months, depending on the individual’s compliance with the conditions of release established by the MNDOC and their progress on case plan goals. The supervision agents determine whether the person has met their goals and the length of the phases.

Phase 4 is the final phase and only persons labeled Level 3 POR are required to complete it. During this phase, a curfew is set by the supervision agent and face-to-face contacts are required at least once a month. Additionally, polygraph testing is required. The phase lasts until the end of the individual’s sentence. Individuals who violate program rules may be returned to prison at the discretion of the MNDOC Hearings and Release Unit.

Study

Duwe and McNeeley (2021) employed a natural experiment to examine the effects of Intensive Supervised Release (ISR) on recidivism, using a sample of 1,818 individuals released from Minnesota prisons in 2018. In July 2018, there was a policy change and the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MNDOC) adopted criteria for ISR assignment that was based solely on the actuarial risk of recidivism. At the time of the study, there were persons released to standard supervision since the policy changed who would have been placed on ISR before July 2018. Likewise, there were individuals released to ISR since July 2018 who would have been placed on standard supervision before July 2018. The policy change served as a counterfactual that underscored what likely would have happened in the absence of ISR.

To be eligible for ISR (the treatment group), those returning from prison had to meet one of the following criteria: 1) a person labeled a predatory offender with Level 3 designation by the End of Confinement Review Committee, 2) a violent recidivism score of 30 percent or higher, 3) a sex offense recidivism score of 4.3 percent or higher, or 4) a violent recidivism risk score between 26 percent and 29 percent. To be eligible for standard supervision (the control group), those being released must have not completed the entirety of their sentence and must have met the new ISR criteria. There were some individuals whose supervision assignment was at odds with the new criteria because of the gradual implementation of the new policy. The sample consisted of individuals released from prison who were placed on ISR and/or met the ISR criteria implemented on July 1, 2018.

ISR consisted of four phases that required varying degrees of contact with the supervision agents. Those in the control group received standard supervision and were assigned a supervising officer who was responsible for monitoring and ensuring their compliance with the conditions ordered by the court.

Of the 1,818 individuals released, 1,423 were placed on ISR and 395 individuals placed on standard supervision. Of those who received ISR (the treatment group), 39.9 percent were Black, 36.7 percent were white, 17.1 percent were American Indian, 5.8 percent were Hispanic, and 0.6 percent were Asian. No age data were provided. The great majority (96.8 percent) of those in the treatment condition were male, had an average violent recidivism risk score of 24.1, an average sex offense recidivism risk score of 3.5, an average nonviolent recidivism risk score of 68.5, and an average felony recidivism risk score of 60.4. Of those who were on standard supervision (the control group), 40.0 percent were white, 40.0 percent were Black, 15.2 percent were American Indian, 4.1 percent were Hispanic, and 0.8 percent were Asian. No age data were provided. The great majority (99.5 percent) of those in the control condition were male, had an average violent recidivism risk score of 37.2, an average sex offense recidivism risk score of 1.9, an average nonviolent recidivism risk score of 80.0, and an average felony recidivism risk score of 68.8. There were significantly more males in the control group, compared with the treatment group. The control group averaged a significantly higher violence recidivism risk score, but the treatment group had a significantly higher sex offense recidivism risk score.

Twelve-month recidivism outcomes were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISR program. The five outcomes of interest were 1) rearrest for any offense, 2) reconviction for any offense, 3) reconviction for a violent offense (including sex offenses), 4) reconviction for a felony offense, and 5) technical violation revocation. Data on arrests and convictions were obtained electronically from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Technical violation revocation data were derived from the Minnesota Department of Corrections’ Correctional Operations Management System. The independent variable was a binary variable indicating whether the individual was placed on ISR or standard supervision. Recidivism risk scores were used as control variables. Violent, nonviolent, and felony recidivism risk data derived from the Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk 2.0, and sex offender recidivism data derived from the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–4. Cox regression was used to estimate the impact of ISR on recidivism by controlling for known risk factors of reoffending. Controls were included to account for history effects (pre and post policy indicator) and gradual implementation of the change in ISR policy (indicator of compliance with new ISR criteria). No subgroup analysis was conducted.

According to the Minnesota Department of Corrections (2021), the Department of Corrections FY20 Intensive Supervised Release (ISR) budget was $4.578 million. About $4.030 million in grants was allocated to local entities to provide ISR. ISR costs about $20 per day per recipient, while traditional probation and supervised release costs about $4 per day per recipient. GPS monitoring costs an additional $6.90 to $7.20 per day per recipient.<br><br> In addition, Duwe and McNeeley (2021) conducted a cost–benefit analysis, which showed that, despite the relatively high costs, ISR was a cost-effective intervention because it reduced reoffending for those with a higher risk of committing serious, violent crimes. The authors illustrate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention by first estimating the annual cost of ISR, accounting for ISR supervision cost and revocation costs. The results indicated that ISR generates $8.96 million in annual costs to the state of Minnesota. To determine whether the recidivism-reduction benefits of ISR exceed $8.96 million, the study authors estimated the costs of the additional reconvictions that would have occurred on regular supervision. The estimated costs from these convictions totaled $40.3 million. If the estimated average cost for the 215 additional reconvictions that would have occurred under standard supervision was $73,737, then the total estimated cost for these offenses would have been $15.85 million. This means that the recidivism-reduction benefit would have exceeded ISR’s supervision and revocation costs ($8.96 million) by $6.89 million, illustrating the cost-effectiveness of ISR.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper, Susan Turner, and Joan Petersilia. 1995. Intensive Community Supervision in Minnesota: A Dual Experiment in Prison Diversion and Enhanced Supervised Release. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND

Dual Experiment In Intensive Community Supervision: Minnesota’s Prison Diversion and Enhanced Supervised Release Programs.” Prison Journal 75(3):330–56.

Minnesota Department of Corrections. N.d. How Supervision Works. St. Paul, Minn.

Minnesota Department of Corrections. 2010. Intensive Supervised Release. St. Paul, Minn.

Minnesota Department of Corrections. 2021. Intensive Supervised Release (ISR) Fact Sheet. St. Paul, Minn.