INTENSIVE SUPERVISED PROBATION 
AND PAROLE IN 
MONTANA 
by 
Alan Randolph Jones 
A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree 
of 
Master of Public Administration 
MONTANA STATS UNIVERSITY 
Bozeman, Montana 
June 1990 
PSIZ 
3 7/1 
ii 
APPROVAL 
of a professional paper submitted by 
Alan Randolph Jones 
This professional paper has been read by each member 
of the thesis committee and has been found to be 
satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, 
citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is 
ready for submission to the College of Graduate Studies. 
Chairperson, Graduate Committee Date 
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies 
Date Graduate Dean 
Ill 
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE 
In presenting this professional paper in partial 
fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at 
Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall 
make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. 
Brief quotations from this professional paper are allowable 
without special permission, provided that accurate 
acknowledgement of source is made. 
Permission for extensive quotation from or 
reproduction of this professional paper may be granted by my 
major professor or in his absence, by the Dean of Libraries 
when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the 
material is for scholarly purposes. Any copying or use of 
the material in this professional paper for financial gain 
shall not be allowed without my written permission. 
iv 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
A special expression of gratitude and appreciation is 
extended to Dr. Richard Haines, Chairperson of my graduate 
committee, for his willingness to work on this subject, 
especially through the summer months, and for his 
willingness to edit this paper. 
Also I would like to thank Dr. Karen Carlson for her 
continuous support and encouragement to get it done. My 
appreciation to Dr. Robert Harvie for his participation on 
the committee. 
I am grateful to those in the Montana corrections 
field who lent their support and help. 
My deepest gratitude to my wife, Christine, who was 
extremely patient with me and for her help typing the rough 
and final drafts. 
V 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
LIST OF TABLES  vii 
ABSTRACT viii 
CHAPTER 
1. INTRODUCTION.  1 
2. PRISON OVERCROWDING AND THE CORRECTIONAL PROCESS 5 
Overcrowding And Its Causes  5 
Incarceration in Montana  7 
The Concept of Parole  9 
The Concept of Probation 11 
Endnotes 14 
3. ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION 16 
Rehabilitation or Custodial Care 16 
Supervision and Sentencing 19 
Alternative Sentencing 21 
Some Innovations in Corrections 23 
Halfway Houses and Prerelease Centers 26 
Intensive Supervised Parole/Probation 27 
Endnotes 31 
4. CORRECTIONS IN MONTANA 33 
Sentencing 33 
Parole Practices 35 
State Correctional Facilities 36 
Adult Community Based Services 37 
Adult Probation and Parole Services 38 
Endnotes 42 
5. INTENSIVE SUPERVISED PROBATION IN MONTANA 44 
Eligibility of an Offender 45 
Working Models of ISP.. 46 
ISP in Montana 50 
Endnotes   . . .59 
vi 
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Cont i nued 
6. PROPOSAL FOR ISP IN MONTANA 61 
Cost Comparisons In Montana 61 
Eligibile Offenders 63 
A Recommendation 65 
Potential Savings to the State of Montana 67 
Implementation Issues 68 
Policy Implications 70 
Endnotes 73 
REFERENCES CITED  75 
APPENDICES 
A. Options 81 
B. State of Montana 85 
C. Electronic  90 
D. Miscellaneous Tables 93 
E. Flowchart, Disposition of Alleged Offender.... 98 
Vll 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table Page 
1. Correctional Institution Population 
Projections, Fiscal Year 1989 - 1995 62 
2. Options Considered By State Prison 
Overcrowding Projects 82 
3. Proposed Budget First Year 
For Each Region 94 
4. Distribution of Probation/Parole 
Supervision by Level 95 
5. Annual Admission to Montana 
Adult Correctional Program 1984 - 1988 96 
6. Average Daily Population of 
Montana Adult Correctional Progress 
Fiscal Year 1980 - 1988 97 
7. Flowchart, Disposition 
of Alleged Offender 99 
ABSTRACT 
Current sentencing practices, both nationally and 
within the State of Montana, have resulted in longer prison 
terms and increased numbers of offenders going to prison. 
In addition, the costs of incarceration and prison 
construction have skyrocketed in recent years. States can 
no longer afford the high cost of incarcerating more and 
more offenders, particularly nonviolent offenders. Prisons 
are operating at or beyond capacity all around the nation. 
Alternatives to incarceration need to be explored and 
instituted. 
The use of alternative forms of sentencing for 
nonviolent offenders will enable jurisdictions to lower 
incarceration rates. In addition to fewer offenders being 
incarcerated, those offenders in such programs as Intensive 
Supervised Probation/Parole can be adequately supervised in 
the community at a fraction of the cost of incarcerating an 
equal number. 
The use of alternative sentences, in particular 
Intensive Supervision, has proved to be quite successful in 
several jurisdictions throughout the country. In Montana, 
Intensive Supervision has been utilized on a limited trial 
basis but with some success. Offenders on Intensive 
Supervision are held accountable for their offenses, are 
well supervised, make restitution to their victims, and 
adapt well to the community in which they are supervised. 
The use of Intensive Supervised Probation and Parole 
throughout the State of Montana will more than pay for 
itself. Such a program can be accomplished with less money 
than would be required to incarcerate an equal number of 
offenders. The use of intensive supervision will also 
assist in lowering incarceration rates and ultimately ease 
the overcrowded conditions in the State Prison. 
1 
CHAPTER 1 
INTRODUCTION 
Prisons throughout the United States are faced with 
the problem of overcrowded conditions. In Montana, the 
State Prison is currently housing inmates in excess of its 
maximum capacity. A major contributing factor to the 
problem of overcrowding, both nationally and in Montana, has 
been more strict sentencing guidelines and the lack of 
alternative sentencing, alternative to incarceration. 
Current sentencing practices nationally and within the 
State of Montana have resulted in longer lengths of stay in 
prisons 'as well as more offenders being sentenced to 
prison. Up unt i 1 the 1980' 's the primary alternative to 
incarceration was the use of probation and parole. This 
procedure is utilized in all 50 states for both juveniles 
and adults. The federal government, on the other hand, 
utilizes probation but no longer practices parole. 
According to government statistics, new prison space is 
occupied beyond its capacity shortly after construction is 
completed. Construction of new prison space can cost as 
much as $50,000 per cell, while housing an inmate can run as 
high as $35,000 a year. The Montana State Prison is 
2 
currently operating in excess of its maximum capacity, and 
the cost per inmate is $36.40 per day. 
If the Montana Legislature wishes to eliminate the 
potential problem of higher expenditures on new prisons and 
crowded conditions in the prison system, it must be willing 
to consider some creative and practical alternatives to the 
correctional system as it now exists. There are a number of 
innovative programs that, if implemented, could reduce the 
State Prison population. One such program is the use of 
Intensive Supervised Probation and Parole. 
It has been shown that states that have utilized 
intensive supervision have realized lower incarceration 
costs with fewer people being sent to prison, saving 
valuable tax dollars. The hypothesis expounded in this 
paper, therefore is that statewide implementation and use of 
Intensive Supervised Probation/Parole (ISP) can save the 
State of Montana a substantial amount of money. 
This paper surveys literature and data on the 
philosophy of corrections, current trends involving 
incarceration, and viable alternatives to incarceration. In 
Chapter 2 overcrowding in prisons, specifically Montana 
State Prison, will be discussed and the correctional process 
will be explored. In addition, the status of incarcerated 
offenders in Montana will be examined. The chapter will 
conclude with a detailed explanation of the concepts of 
parole and probation. Rehabilitation and alternatives to 
3 
incarceration will be defined and examined in Chapter 3. 
Trends and the use of alternative sentencing will also be 
discussed, with examples of some innovations involving 
alternative sentencing. The chapter will conclude with an 
introduction to Intensive Supervision as well as references 
to where and how it has been used. 
Chapter 4 will describe and define the correctional 
system in Montana. Parole and probation practices, 
sentencing and other services within Montana will be 
described and explained. The chapter will also give a 
detailed description of costs and figures relative to the 
Montana system, including the cost of incarceration in 
Montana's correctional institutions. A detailed examination 
of Intensive Supervised Probation and Parole will be given 
in Chapter 5. ISP will be defined and illustrated. The 
chapter will provide working models of ISP as well as 
explain the extent to which it is currently utilized in 
Montana. The Montana model is described and explained. 
Finally, in the concluding chapter, a recommendation for the 
statewide use of ISP in Montana is offered. Prison 
population projections are discussed and the eligibility of 
offenders is defined. Included in the proposal is a working 
budget for the program and discussion of some problems and 
pitfalls regarding the implementation of the program. 
The final chapter concludes with a discussion of the 
overall feasibility of the proposal. A cost benefit 
4 
analysis of the proposal reveals that such a program could 
potentially save the State of Montana a substantial amount 
of money. The use of ISP statewide would permit the 
supervision of nonviolent offenders without incarcerating 
them in the State correctional institutions, and at a 
fraction of the cost of incarceration. 
5 
CHAPTER 2 
PRISON OVERCROWDING AND THE CONVENTIONAL SOLUTIONS 
This chapter discusses the problem of overcrowding in 
both state and federal prison systems. It will also define 
and review some of the conventional practices used to reduce 
the crowded conditions in prisons, particularly parole and 
probation. 
Overcrowding And Its Causes 
Prisons, both state and federal, are faced with inmate 
numbers beyond their capacities, while trends indicate that 
the increases in incarceration will likely continue. The 
combined total of federal and state prisoners on December 
31, 1988 was 627,402, an increase of 7.4 percent from 1987. 
Since 1980 the number of prisoners has grown about 90 
percent, currently increasing at about 800 per week.1 State 
prison systems reported increases of between 7 and 23 
percent last year, with Western states reporting the 
largest increase (11.5 percent in 1987 and 166 percent since 
1980). At the same time the capacity of state and federal 
prisons only grew by 5.5 percent, which is 1.9 percent short 
6 
of what is needed just to keep pace with the increased 
inmate population.2 The rate of incarceration of sentenced 
prisoners in state and federal institutions increased from 
104 per 100,000 in 1974 to 170 per 100,000 in 1982.3 
The problem of overcrowding in state prison systems has 
resulted in large part from many state legislatures having 
passed new laws calling for mandatory prison terms for 
certain offenders. Several states now have "habitual 
offender" statutes that require mandatory prison time for 
those convicted of more than two felonies. The same trend 
is evident at the Federal level. 
The Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which took 
effect November 1987,^ requires Federal Judges to select a 
sentence within guidelines to be set by a new Sentencing 
Commission; any departure from established guidelines must 
be specified by the Judge and reasons must be set forth.® 
The Sentencing Commission, consisting of seven members 
appointed by the President, will specify what sentences 
should be imposed for various crimes. The new guidelines 
will generally increase the amount of prison time that 
federal convicts are required to serve. It is expected 
that the new federal sentencing guidelines will place an 
additional burden on the already overcrowded Federal Bureau 
of Prisons. According to Ilene Nagel, one of the 
commissioners and law professor at Indiana University, the 
Sentencing Commission's "major purpose is to control crime," 
7 
and not to deal with the problem of prison capacity.6 
The U.S. Supreme Court, in January 1989, upheld the new 
sentencing guidelines created by the Sentencing Reform Act 
of 1984.^ The Act was later amended under Public Law 99-363 
and labeled the "Sentencing Guideline Adjustment Act of 
1986." 
Incarceration in Montana 
References in this paper to the Montana Correctional 
Institutions includes the Montana State Prison (MSP), Swan 
River Forest Camp (SRFC), Women's Correctional Center (WCC), 
and the prerelease centers (PRC). It should be noted that 
these institutions increased their numbers by 40 percent 
between 1980 and 1987.® The length of stay at Montana 
correctional institutions has also increased between 1980 
and 1988, from 23.7 months to 30.5 months, a 29 percent 
increase.® \ 
As of May 1989 the Montana State Prison housed 50 
inmates over its maximum capacity. On July 12, 1989 Curt 
Chisolm, Director of the Montana Department of Institutions, 
announced that the prison wouldn't accept any more inmates 
until the population at the prison falls below 1,100.10 
Between 1980 and 1987, there was a decrease in the 
overall crime rate, particularly with regard to violent 
crimes. The rate for all crime in the state fell from 
5,950.0 per 100,000 population in 1980 to 5,550.0 per 
8 
population in 1987.^ Length of stay has increased since 
1980 as has the prison population; even though crime, in 
terms of numbers of offenses committed, has decreased. 
There are numerous factors influencing the length of 
stay in Montana's penal facilities. These include court- 
imposed sentences, parole practices and the use of good time 
or credit for time served in prison. Most of the 
increase in prison population can be attributed to public 
policy changes reflective of state sentencing, parole, and 
probation practices.12 For example, several laws were 
passed by the 1989 Montana Legislature that will likely lead 
to increases in the population of the Montana State Prison. 
The new laws impose mandatory minimum prison terms for the 
sale of cocaine; lower the age limit from 21 to 19 for 
putting delinquent youth in prison; and require that 
sentences are to be served consecutively, rather than 
concurrently, when a judge's sentence is unclear.13 
Probation does not affect the length of an offender's 
stay in prison because probationers are not incarcerated, 
but those placed on probation do have a negative effect on 
the size of the prison population, because, if fewer numbers 
of individuals were put on probation there would certainly 
be an increase in the state prison population. 
There appears to be a trend developing in the State of 
Montana and in other states toward the increased use of 
incarceration and longer sentences, resulting in overcrowded 
9 
conditions in most penal institutions. At this point, 
there seem to be two solutions; (1) build more prisons and 
continue to expand our use of incarceration as a means of 
disposing of criminal offenders; or (2) come up with 
alternative means of sentencing offenders that do not 
include incarceration. Up to the 1980s, the means used most 
commonly as an alternative to incarceration has been the use 
of Parole and Probation. 
9 
The Concept of Parole 
Until the early eighteenth century, incarceration was 
utilized primarily as an alternative to execution in both 
the American Colonies and Europe. During this period petty 
offenders were sentenced to prison but weren't executed. 
Similarly, parole in the twentieth century emerged as an 
alternative to incarcerating offenders in prison. Parole is 
designed to provide for the early release of offenders from 
prison, based on the offender's performance and behavior 
while incarcerated. 
A major consideration prior to granting parole is to 
make a determination as to the offender's probability of 
recidivating or posing a threat to the community. Carter 
and Wilkins define parole as: 
A procedure by which prisoners are selected for 
release and a service by which they are provided 
with necessary controls, assistance, and guidance as 
they serve the remainder sentences within the free 
community... 
10 
Dressier refers to parole as "a treatment, program In which 
an offender, after serving part of a term in a correctional 
institution, is conditionally released under supervision and 
treatment by a parole worker."10 
What we consider parole today, in the United States can 
probably be traced to the use of pardons and commutations as 
they were used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in 
Europe.16 Parole comes from the French word parole and 
means "word of honor." One of the earliest uses of parole 
occurred in the British penal colonies of Australia during 
the late 18th century in the form of conditional releases 
for certain prisoners.17. 
The first law in the United States to allow for 
shortened sentences was passed in New York in 1817. This 
statute was referred to as the "good time law."1® Offenders 
were given consideration and credit for good behavior while 
incarcerated. By 1891 eight states had some sort of 
indeterminate sentencing laws, in most cases applied only to 
first time offenders.19 
Parole is now authorized and used in all states and the 
District of Columbia. Although most states have made parole 
a part of their correctional structure, the way in which it 
is used and administered varies between states. In most 
states, parole is granted by parole boards or other 
administrative agencies. Factors entering into the use of 
parole are state sentencing laws, seriousness of the 
11 
offenses, ability to supervise offenders and the willingness 
of the community to accept the released offenders. 
The Concept of Probation 
Probation differs from parole in that those on parole 
actually serve part of their sentence in a correctional 
facility or prison. Probation, on the other hand, involves 
a sentence without incarceration. Both probation and parole 
usually require supervision of the offender by an officer. 
In addition there are other conditions and requirements 
placed on the offender as part of the probation/parole 
agreement, and there also exists the possibility of 
revocation should the parolee or probationer violate the 
terms of the agreement. 
Probation is: 
A non-incarcerative sentence imposed by a Judicial 
official, usually accompanied by several conditions 
and behavioral requirements, and involving variable 
supervision by a probation officer.20 
Dressier defines probation as: 
A treatment program in which final action in an 
adjudicated offender's case is suspended, so that he 
remains at liberty, subject to conditions imposed by 
or for a court, under the supervision and guidance of 
a probation worker.21 
In essence probation is a contract or agreement between the 
offender and the Court having jurisdiction over him/her. 
Probation can be traced to the concept of recognizance. 
12 
from the Latin recognoscere. which means "recall to mind". 
Recognizance was utilized in seventeenth century England 
when dealing with petty offenders.22 Under recognizance an 
offender agreed to refrain from doing whatever illegal 
activity brought him before the Court. In some cases 
he/she might have been required to make a later appearance 
before the court for final disposition of the case. 
It wasn't until 1836 that Massachusetts revised its law 
and gave legislative recognition to "release upon 
recognizance," with sureties. The Massachusetts law applied 
primarily to petty offenders in the lower courts.23 John 
Augustus has often been referred to as the "father" of 
American probation. Augustus was a Boston shoemaker who 
became interested in helping criminals who had committed 
minor offenses. A Boston judge released selected 
individuals to Augustus rather than incarcerate them (2,000 
between 1841 and 1859); Augustus would supervise and assist 
those placed in his charge.24 
Massachusetts was the first state to formally adopt 
probation by statute in 1887. Between 1878 and 1938, 37 
states and the District of Columbia had juvenile and adult 
probation, Mississippi being the last state to authorize 
adult probation in 1956. Montana had adopted the use of 
probation in 1913.2S 
The purposes of probation include, but may not be 
limited to: rehabilitation, deterrence, crime control. 
13 
reintegration, punishment, restitution, and reduction of 
prison or jail space.26 The philosophy of probation, as it 
was originally envisioned by John Augustus and others, was 
primarily to attempt rehabilitation of an offender. 
However, reduction of prison overcrowding, has become the 
primary functional benefit of utilizing probation in the 
state and federal prison system.27 
By 1987, in the United States, there were 2,094,405 
persons on probation. Montana had 2,943 individuals on 
probation on December 31, 1986, an increase of 11.6 percent 
from January 1, 1986.20 
It can't be disputed that there exists a definite 
problem with regard to prison overcrowding. This problem is 
evident throughout the nation and in the State of Montana. 
At this point, the two practices that are available to deal 
with this problem are probation and parole. The following 
chapter deals with a variety of new ideas that may provide 
solutions to the problem of overcrowding prisons. 
14 
ENDNOTES 
1. Bessette. Joseph M., "Prison population climbed 
7.4% last year to 627,402." Criminal Justice Newsletter 20 
no. 9 (May 1, 1989): 6. 
2. Ibid, p. 6. 
3. "Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions on 
Dec. 31, 1982." National Prisoner Statistics Bulletin, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Dec. 31, 1982: 52. 
4. 
Challenge 
1989): 1 
"Sentencing Reforms withhold Overall Due-Process 
." Criminal Justice Newsletter. 20. no. 12 (June 15. 
5. 
Prospects 
Champion, Dean J., Felony Probation: Problems and 
New York: Praeger, 1988: 119. 
6. 
Fairly." 
Press, Arec and McDaniel, Ann, "Doing hardtime, 
Newsweek, Feb. 16. 1987: 79. 
7. "Unknown Author of High Court Affirms Federal 
Sentence System." Bozeman. [Montana] Daily Chronicle. 18 Jan. 
1989: 14. 
8. Montana Board of Crime Control. Criminal Justice 
Issues in Montana. 1980-1987, Data Book 1988, "population and 
admissions" 1988: 65. 
9. Ibid, p. 65. 
10. 
inmates." 
Munzenrider, Rita, "State prison won't Accept new 
Billinas Gazette. 12 July 1989: A-5. 
11. Ibid, p. 16. 
12. Montana Board of Crime Control, p. 26. 
13. 
number." 
"Unknown Author of New law could add to inmate 
Bozeman, [Montana] Daily Chronicle, 4 May 1984: 5. 
15 
14. Carter, Robert M., and Wilkins, Leslie T., Probation 
and Parole. New York: John Wiley and Son Inc., 1970: 180. 
15. Dressier, David, Practice and Theory of Probation 
and Parole. 2nd Edition, New York: Columbia University Press, 
1969: 56. 
16. Giardine, G.I., The Parole Process. Springfield: 
Thomas Publishing, 1959: 8. 
17. Evrard, Franklin A., Successful Parole. 
Springfield: Thomas Publishing, 1971: 7. 
18. Evrard, 7-8. 
19. Dressier, 76. 
20. Champion, 7. 
21. Dressier, 16. 
22. Dressier, 18. 
23. Carter and Wilkins, 6. 
24. Dressier, 24 - 25. 
25. Champion, 3. 
26. Ibid, 7. 
27. Ibid, p. 7-11. 
28. Hester, Thomas, Probation and Parole. 1986, 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, 1987: 
2. 
16 
CHAPTER 3 
ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION 
This chapter discusses research in the area of 
rehabilitation and examines some new proposals aimed at 
eliminating the problem of overcrowding in prisons. It 
concludes with a review and discussion of proposed 
alternatives to incarceration, including innovations that 
utilize non-prison sentencing. 
Rehabilitation or Custodial Care 
In 1979 The National Academy of Science founded a 
research committee on law enforcement, criminal justice, 
behavioral science and the social sciences.1 The panel 
defined rehabilitation as: 
The result of any planned intervention that reduces an 
offender's further criminal activity, whether that 
reduction is mediated by personality, behavior, 
abilities, attitudes, values or other factors. The 
effects of maturation and the effects associated with 
"fear" or "intimidation" are excluded, the results of 
the latter have traditionally been labeled as specific 
deterrence.2 
Taking into consideration this definition, it appears 
as though probation practices have little to do with 
17 
rehabilitation. It appears that probation is increasingly 
becoming the practice of custodial care in a nonprison 
environment. It serves primarily as a means of 
"controlling a segment of the offender population at varying 
levels of supervision."3 
The panel made several observations regarding the 
future prospects of rehabilitation. To begin with, the 
panel found that the use of alternative sentencing hasn't 
really been explored to any great extent. Further, the 
panel determined that there has as yet never been exhaustive 
evaluation of innovative sentencing. The panel found that 
although the current literature does afford hints of 
interventions that may have promise, they found "no basis 
for positive recommendations about techniques to 
rehabilitate criminal offenders." The panel did recommend 
that any proposed intervention or program to be tested 
should be accompanied by a research protocol reflecting the 
strongest possible* design to permit any causal influences. 
In conclusion, the panel found that better resources and 
renewed effort is required to develop a useful knowledge 
about rehabilitating criminal offenders.-4 
In 1981, responding to a perceived need to look at 
new approaches for controlling the increase in prison 
population. the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and the 
National Institute of Corrections funded the National Prison 
Overcrowding Project. The project was planned and managed 
18 
by the Center for Effective Public Policy. The goal of the 
Project was to incorporate a very broad and systematic view 
in efforts to control prison overcrowding. The Project 
invited four states to participate; Colorado, Michigan, 
Oregon, and South Carolina. Because the focus was on 
involving state policymakers, the teams consisted of 
representatives from the three branches of government, 
ranking members of the criminal justice field and law 
enforcement, and private citizens.® 
The Project made recommendations in Colorado to expand 
prison capacity and to increase use of the transitional 
community correction facilities. The Colorado team also 
considered a plan to develop sentencing guidelines, but 
expressed doubt that the use of intensive probation 
supervision would have an impact on prison population. The 
team did pass a resolution to authorize the parole board to 
use a risk assessment in establishing the length of parole 
supervision. 
The Michigan project team passed resolutions 
recommending that the prison administration give certain 
offenders time off for good behavior. It also proposed that 
county officials be allowed to release certain offenders if 
the jail's population is over 95 percent of designed 
capacity. Michigan will also consider legislation that 
would keep certain offenders, who would otherwise go to 
prison, in the community. 
19 
The Oregon team offered a proposal to reform 
sentencing guidelines but failed to get a bill through the 
State Senate that would have allowed the Governor to release 
prisoners up to 90 days early in order to reduce prison 
population. The Oregon group recommended adding parole 
officers and increasing the number of offenders released on 
supervised fur1oughs. 
In South Carolina, the State Legislature enacted the 
team’s recommendation to give the Governor power to release 
prisoners 90 days early when the prison population exceeds 
operating capacity. 
The Prison Overcrowding Project concluded that their 
work helped to educate the public and therefore lessened 
opposition to the difficult decisions that have to be made 
regarding corrections. The Project also pointed out that 
above all, decision makers could now view criminal justice 
policymaking more systemically.6 
Any plan to reduce prison populations, regardless of 
the means utilized, will require that offenders either 
diverted from prison or released early from their sentence 
be properly supervised. It will be imperative that 
supervision of offenders meet the needs of both the offender 
and the community where they are supervised. 
Supervision and Sentencing 
Whatever form of supervision is utilized it will 
20 
require that participation be selective, that the issue of 
risk be addressed, and that supervision of offenders be 
adequate. In addition, it is vital that the interests of 
the victims of crime be served. This could be accomplished 
through restitution, compensation, community service and 
reconciliation agreements, when possible. There will also 
be a need for changes in statutory authority regarding 
sentencing guidelines and sentencing laws. 
Thomas Quinn suggests a kind of hierarchical framework 
of sentencing he calls "sequential sanctioning." 
Consisting of ten levels of accountabi1ity, each level 
having a prescribed mix of restrictions on mobi1ity. 
Quinn's concept utilizes certain guidelines to insure 
consistent assignment of offenders to the appropriate level 
of supervision or accountability. The offender's criminal 
record, background and current offense are all considered in 
making a sentencing decision.7 
Whether such alternative sentencing involves 
restitution, supervised and intensive supervised probation, 
community service, house arrest, halfway houses, or parole, 
there are a number of factors to be considered. Statutory 
sentencing guidelines must be amended to allow the use of 
non-prison sentences in certain selective situations. There 
should be public support of nontraditional programs 
involving alternative sentencing. Policy makers need to 
weigh carefully the enormous costs of continuing the 
21 
traditional form of corrections with its emphasis on 
incarceration. If we don't put more emphasis on preparing 
and assisting the return of the criminal offender to society 
as a contributing citizen, then we must reconcile ourselves 
to the fact that we will be spending more and more money on 
prisons with little or nothing to show for it except an 
excess of eligible offenders to fill them. 
Winston Churchill characterized the correctional 
dilemma as follows: 
The treatment of crime and criminals is one of 
themost unfailing tests of a civilization.... A 
desireand an eagerness to rehabilitate... and 
tireless efforts towards the discovery of a 
regenerating processfor criminals mark and measure 
the stored-up strength of a nation.® 
Alternative Sentencing 
A study funded by the U.S. Justice Department and 
conducted in 1980 found that new or added-on prison space is 
filled to 130 percent of capacity within five years.* 
Housing one inmate in a state prison typically costs around 
$24,000 per year and for maximum security facilities the 
cost can go as high as $35,000 per year.10 
In the United States we spend over $9 billion a year 
to operate existing state prisons. Billions more go to the 
Federal prison system and to fund capital outlays and 
construction of new prisons.11 
An additional factor contributing to the increased 
22 
awareness of non-prison sentencing has been the pressure 
brought to bare by the state and federal courts. Currently 
38 states are under some sort of state or federal court 
order or consent decree to reduce prison populations.12 The 
National Prison Project reports that entire prison systems 
in ten jurisdictions are operated under court order or 
consent decree. These jurisdictions are Alabama, Alaska, 
Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Puerto Rico.13 
Throughout the United States in the last ten years 
overcrowding and astronomical costs have led to a 
significant increase in the use of alternative sentencing. 
Alternative sentencing is any sentence not involving 
imprisonment. These sentences usually involve probation as 
well as any combination of additional restrictions such as 
house arrest, restitution, fines, community service, 
counseling, drug testing, mandatory employment, electronic 
monitoring of an individual's movement, supervision of 
varying degrees, and the loss of certain privileges. 
Most states have begun to look at some form of 
alternative sentencing of criminal offenders, primarily 
nonviolent offenders, involving increased supervision with 
added conditions and requirements. Sentencing advocacy 
programs are also on the increase. 
The Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C. reports 
that there are now 115 defense based sentencing advocacy 
23 
programs in twenty-seven states. The purpose of sentencing 
advocacy is to develop alternative sentencing proposals for 
"prison bound offenders." An advocacy group compiles 
information about a defendant's criminal history, 
background, education, family, employment, and 
medical/psychological history. The advocate then makes a 
recommendation that may include supervision, counseling, 
community service, restitution, drug treatment, or other 
conditions. Of the 115 programs, forty are affiliated with 
public defender offices; others are private groups. 
Sources of funding for the advocacy programs range from 
state and local governments and fees provided by the 
offender for service, to federal drug enforcement grant 
money. 
These advocacy programs may prove to be most 
beneficial. Such programs are but one example of the 
innovative thinking directed toward the resolution of the 
problem of overcrowding prisons. 
Some Innovations In Corrections 
An interesting innovation in the area of correction 
and supervision of criminal offenders is the increased use 
of electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring is a 
process that enables the surveillance of offenders by the 
use of electronic tracking and transmitting devices. This 
type of surveillance does not rely on face-to-face contact 
24 
with a supervising officer, making it possible to provide 
supervision of multiple offenders at the same time. It was 
first used in Palm Beach, Florida in 1984. By 1988, thirty- 
three states utilized some form of electronic supervision 
involving 2,300 offenders; the average cost for supervised 
offender was about $15 dollars per participant per day.155 
Benjamin F. Baer, chairman of the U.S. Parole 
Commission, recently stated that electronic supervision 
"could result in significantly reduced costs over methods 
that are now being used." He also feels that electronic 
monitoring could provide an alternative to incarceration for 
certain offenders. 
The U.S. Justice Department is currently conducting 
tests involving electronic monitoring; there are eleven 
offenders participating in the test. This test is being 
administered by Guardian Alternatives Technologies of 
Denver, an organization specializing in electronic 
surveillance and monitoring. In this test the cost of 
supervising an offender ranges from $5.00 to $30.00 a day 
for a parolee in a halfway house. The Justice Department 
anticipates that as many as 7,000 inmates could potentially 
be eligible for electronic monitoring. Those convicted of 
sex offenses and those with ties to organized crime are not 
eligible for the federal program.16 Given the cost of 
incarcerating federal offenders there is potential in such a 
program for enormous savings to the American taxpayers. 
25 
Florida has a computerized control program that has 
proven to be an "efficient method of alternative sentencing 
and part of the solution to the state's prison overcrowding 
crunch." The Florida program tracks offenders 24 hours a 
day and they must pay a fee to help defer maintenance 
costs.1*7 So far, 1,700 offenders have participated in the 
Florida program. The program has several levels of control; 
only offenders convicted of non-violent crimes are eligible 
and offenders who participate must not be considered a 
security risk. Florida Department of Corrections officials 
are planning to expand the use of electronic monitoring 
because such a program provides for the constant 
surveillance of offenders. Electronic monitoring of 
offenders is more cost effective than incarcerating them in 
Florida institutions.1® 
The Texas Attorney General recently ruled that the use 
of electronic means to monitor the whereabouts of proba¬ 
tioners was constitutional (Aug. 11, 1987). Texas is using 
electronic devices on a limited basis in two counties. 
Probation officers in Texas agree that electronic monitoring 
will be a helpful tool and will allow the state to increase 
the number of probationers.1® 
Electronic monitoring could be a useful tool as an 
augmentation to probation and parole. Electronic monitoring 
alone won't provide the kind of service that most probation¬ 
ers require. Most offenders on probation will need 
26 
counseling, direction, and support in their efforts to es¬ 
tablish new patterns for living a crime free life. A 
positive aspect of electronic supervision is that it will 
provide for the constant surveillance of the offender when 
he/she is not directly involved with a probation or parole 
officer. 
Halfway Houses and Prerelease Centers 
Prerelease centers, halfway houses and other 
facilities that are less restrictive and less costly than 
prison are also viable alternatives to incarceration. Most 
of the argument one hears against halfway houses or 
prerelease centers has to do with possible threat or risk to 
the community. The residents of halfway houses and 
prerelease centers can be adequately supervised and at a 
cost substantially lower than the costs of incarceration. 
In most halfway houses an inmate must work, turn over 
his/her pay to the supervisor, pay rent, go directly to and 
from work, and adhere to very strict curfew rules.20 Qne 
inmate resident of The Highland House in Phoenix said "in 
many ways this is tougher than the joint," just one mistake 
and it's back to prison.21 In a halfway house, an inmate is 
permitted the opportunity to re-enter society in a way that 
will provide him/her with valuable experience dealing with 
the pressures of the outside world. Another positive aspect 
is that halfway houses can serve the needs of an inmate at a 
27 
fraction of the cost of incarceration. 
When one considers the costs of incarceration, prison 
construction, and the problems relative to overcrowding 
conditions, it certainly does appear to be in society's best 
interest to insure that inmates are returned to society with 
the best possible chance of success. 
Intensive Supervised Probation/Parole 
The most promising form of alternative sentencing is 
the practice of intensive supervised probation (ISP). With 
ISP there is little or no need for additional physical 
facilities in order to implement and operate such a program. 
There will be a need for additional start-up funds, however, 
the total amount would be substantially less than the funds 
required to incarcerate an equal number of individuals for 
the same amount of time. 
Critics often point to the high recidivism rates of 
those placed on probation. Champion, however, points out 
that the recent innovations in probation programs, 
specifically intensive supervision, have resulted in 
substantially lower recidivism rates among probationers in 
such programs.22 
One of the leaders in corrections innovations has been 
the State of Georgia with its Intensive Probation/House 
Arrest Program, often referred to as "the future of American 
corrections."as The purpose of the Georgia program is to 
28 
demonstrate that serious offenders could be supervised 
effectively within the community. Offenders normally spend 
from 6 to 12 months on intensive supervision/house arrest. 
The program is worked by a team consisting of a probation 
officer and a surveillance officer. The Georgia program 
limits an individual officer's case load to 25. To date 
3,000 offenders have participated, and only 16 percent have 
been removed from the program or returned to prison for 
technical violations.24 
Those who participate in the Georgia Program must 
either work or receive educational/vocational training. 
Offenders pay a fee of $10 to $50 per month, observe a very 
strict curfew, and keep the probation officer notified of 
all activities. Offenders also pay restitution, if 
required, and perform up to 132 hours of community service. 
The probation officers provide a list of all those being 
supervised to local law enforcement agencies. The program 
has been credited with contributing to a 10 percent 
reduction of felons who are incarcerated and with lower 
recidivism rates.25 
Funds for parole supervision in Texas were tripled in 
1983. In addition, $26 million was appropriated for 
intensive probation and restitution centers. These steps 
were taken as an alternative to providing the $1 billion 
needed for prison construction in order to keep pace with 
the projected prison population growth. Texas authorities 
29 
hope to divert 9,000 offenders from the state's prisons over 
a two-year period.26 
In New Jersey, intensive supervision requires 
participants to hold a job, observe curfew, perform 
community service, pay victim restitution, and contribute to 
the cost of the program. Of 275 offenders in the New Jersey 
program thus far, only 2.5% have been jailed for new crimes, 
this program started in 1987.2,7 
Kentucky has an intensive supervised probation program 
that boasts a success rate of 83 percent. Of 1,337 
offenders who have participated, only slightly more than 2 
percent were removed because they were convicted on new 
charges. The expected cost of the program in 1988 is 
estimated to be $3.72 per offender per day, compared to $32 
per day to incarcerate the same offender.26 George Wilson, 
Secretary of the Kentucky Corrections Cabinet cited an 
estimated yearly savings of $1.9 million. This savings 
represents the difference between the cost of intensive 
supervision and the cost of incarceration for the same 
period of time. The goal of the program was to "enhance 
public safety, provide an alternative to incarceration and 
reduce costs to the taxpayers." According to Wilson, the 
goals "are being achieved and are even being exceeded."26 
Alternative sentencing isn't the only possible 
solution to the problem of overcrowded prisons and higher 
rates of incarceration. To some, the option of building 
30 
more prisons at a faster rate is the only viable alternative 
to the problem of overcrowding in prisons. The political 
consequences of appearing soft on crime are of paramount 
importance to policy makers and elected officials. The 
majority of Americans view criminals as deserving punishment 
and the majority of our prisons operate from a punitive 
rather than a rehabilitative perspective. This trend, 
however, appears to be changing, primarily as a result of 
the extraordinarily high cost of incarcerating individuals, 
the majority of which repeat or recidivate and end up back 
in prison. The need to save scarce public resources seems 
to be the primary motivating factor for changing existing 
correctional systems throughout our country. 
31 
ENDNOTES 
1. The committees title was "Panel on Research on 
Rehabilitative Techniques," Members were: Lee B. Sechrest, 
Nathan H. Ozrin, Eugene Eidenbug, Steven Fienberg, Jack Bibbs, 
Gary Bottfredson, Claudewell S. Thomas, Ann White and Samual 
Krislov. The panel spent nearly two years on the project. 
2. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Pane 1 
on Research on Rehabilitation: The Rehabilitation of Criminal 
Offenders, Problems and Prospect. Vol. 1, Washington: 1962: 
4. 
3. Champion, Dean J., Felony Probation: Problems and 
Prospects. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988: p. 126. 
4. Panel of Research on Rehabilitation Techniques, 
pg. 102 - 104. 
5. Kaufman, Gerald. "The National Prison Overcrowding 
Project: Policy Analysis and Politic , a New Approach." 
ANNLS, AAPSS, 478 (March 1985): 161-170. 
6. Ibid, p.170. 
7. Quinn, Thomas, "Focus for the future: Accountability 
in Sentencing," Federal Probation. 48 No. 2 (March 1984): 10-18. 
8. Churchill, Winston. Taken from subtitle to chapter 
10, Smarto, Don. Justice and Mercy. Tyndale Publisher, 1987: 
150. 
9. Anderson, George M., "Probation: Its Unfulfilled 
Potential", America. April 6, 1985: 283. 
10. Green, Richard, "Who's Punishing Whom," Forbes, March 
21, 1988: 132. 
11. Rocawich, Linda, "Lock'em Up," The Progressive. 
August 1987: 16. 
32 
12. Lacay, Richard, "Considering Alternatives," Time. 
Feb. 2, 1987: 60. 
13. National Prison Project, "Statue Report: The Courts 
and the Prisons," Criminal Justice Newsletter. Jan. 1, 1989: 4. 
14. "Unknown Author Sentencing Advocacy, The Sentencing 
Project." Criminal Justice Newsletter, 20 no. 6, 1989: 6. 
15. "Electronic monitoring of offenders increases. 
Criminal Justice Newsletter, 20 No. 6, 1989: 6. 
16. Ibid, p. 6. 
17. Cerquone, Jeanne. "Florida's Computerized Control." 
Corrections Today, June 1987: 127. 
18. Ibid, pg. 127. 
19. Mattox, Jim Texas Attorney General. "Probation 
Monitors are Legal," Washington Crime News Service, Correction 
Digest, 18 (Sept. 2, 1987): 10. 
20. Di Spoldo, Nick, 
Alternative," America, April 
"Ha1fway Houses: 
20, 1985: 319. 
A Prison 
21. Ibid, pg. 320. 
22. Champion, p. 131. 
23. Petersilia, Joan, "Future of Corrections;" Crimina1 
Justice Newsletter 20 no. 12 (June 15, 1989): 7. 
24. Ibid. p. 19. 
25. "Sentence Reforms, Recidivism rates," Crimina1 
Justice Newsletter 20 no. 12 (June 15, 1989): 7. 
26. Harries, N. Kay, "Reducing Prison Crowding and Non¬ 
prison Penalties." Annals, AAPSS 478 (March 1985): 155. 
27. "Unknown Author The Perils of Probation." Time, 11 
Feb. 1985: 37. 
28. Wilson, George W. "Kentucky Sites' 83% Success Rate 
With Intensive Supervision." Criminal Justice Newsletter 18 
no. 23 (Dec. 1, 1987): 7. 
29. Ibid. pg.7. 
33 
CHAPTER 4 
CORRECTIONS IN MONTANA 
This chapter provides background on the Montana 
correctional system as it now exits. It also reviews the 
Montana adult probation and parole programs as well as the 
current situation at the Montana State Prison and other 
correctional institutions in the state. The purpose of the 
chapter is to provide insight into how the current 
correctional process works in Montana. 
Sentencing 
Montana faces the same problem of prison overcrowding 
as do many other states, albeit on a smaller scale. The 
incidence of serious crime in Montana, those crimes being 
homicide, rape, robbery and assault, have decreased from 
1,680 in 1980 to 934 in 1988.1 During the same period of 
time, Montana's prison population has increased from 714 
inmates in 1980 to 1007 in 1988.2 
The Corrections Division of the Montana Department of 
Institutions (MCI) reports that there are a number of 
factors responsible for the continual growth of the MCI 
34 
population. Its 1988 annual report cites several sentencing 
practices as contributing to the increased state prison 
population. 
Among the current sentencing practices that seem to be 
contributing to the increased prison population in Montana 
is that more offenders are being sentenced to prison on 
their first conviction. In addition, offenders are 
receiving longer terms. The average length of stay for a 
prisoner has also increased, particularly during the 1980's. 
The number of offenders being sentenced to prison as a 
result of probation and parole violations has also 
increased. At the same time, throughout the 1980's, 
offenders receiving probationary sentences decreased.3 All 
of these sentencing practices have contributed to increased 
prison population in Montana. 
The dangerous offender designation has been imposed 
more often in the last ten years, also resulting in an 
increase of population at the prison. When an offender is 
designated a dangerous offender by the sentencing judge, he 
must serve half of the sentence before becoming eligible for 
parole; those offenders not designated dangerous are 
eligible for parole after serving one-quarter of their 
sentences. In 1980, the prison population designated as 
dangerous offenders was 8.4 percent of the total; in 1988, 
the percentage of dangerous offenders in the state prison 
population was 14.6 percent. A dangerous offender 
35 
designation will most certainly have a major impact on an 
individual's length of stay in prison.*4 
If these sentencing practices constitute a trend, it 
will be imperative that the legislative branch of 
government, as well as the courts, seriously examine 
nonincarcerative sentencing practices if they desire to 
bring about a reduction in state prison population. 
Parole Practices 
The overcrowded conditions at Montana State Prison 
have become so severe that offenders are now given early 
parole in order to alleviate the problem. The Montana Board 
of Pardons paroled 63 inmates during July 1989. This 
reflected an increase of almost three times the current 
monthly average of twenty-two inmates paroled per month. On 
August 7, 1989 Board of Pardons Chairman Henry Burgess said, 
"the Board will continue to parole inmates to help ease 
overcrowding at Montana State Prison." According to 
Burgess, violent offenders and sex offenders weren't 
considered for the early parole. Most of those paroled were 
convicted of nonviolent offenses such as property crimes and 
theft. Burgess said, "our concern is for public safety." 
The prison population at Montana State Prison as of August 
8, 1989 was 1,095 inmates, this is 65 inmates over its 
maximum capacity.® 
36 
State Correctional Facilities 
Montana's correctional system consists of three 
correctional facilities and five prerelease centers, all of 
which are operating near or over capacity and are expensive 
to maintain. These facilities include the Montana State 
Prison (MSP) located in Deer Lodge. The State Prison 
operates five programs: (1) Care and custody; (2) Prison 
Ranch; (3) License Plate Factory; (4) Prison Canteen; (5) a 
prison industries training program.6 The original capacity 
of the prison was 754 inmates. There are currently 1,095 
inmates housed at the prison. A 96 bed addition is 
currently under construction. The total cost of housing an 
inmate in 1988 was $36.42 per day. This compares to $34.16 
in 1984, a 6.6 percent increase over the last four years.7 
The Swan River Forest Camp (SRFC), is a minimum security 
prison for 18 to 25 year old males. Swan River has a 
capacity of 54 inmates and is currently operating at 
capacity. SRFC has rehabilitation programs consisting of 
vocational training, general education, work programs, and 
chemical dependency treatment. The total cost per inmate 
per day at (SRFC) is $48.62.® The Women's Correctional 
Center (WCC) is located at Warm Springs. The WCC is a 
converted dormitory and was designed to house 30 inmates; as 
of July 1989 there were 47 inmates. The WCC has 
educational/vocational programs, treatment programs, 
recreational activities, parental training, and spiritual 
37 
services. The cost per day per inmate is $40.46.® 
Adult Community Based Services 
Community based correctional services in Montana 
consist of prerelease centers and the probation and parole 
services. With community based service, an offender receives 
supervision, training, treatment, and employment in the 
community in which he/she resides. 
Montana has five prerelease centers, four for males 
and one for females. The three centers in Butte, Great 
Falls, and Billings are operated by non-profit organizations 
on contract to the state. The remaining two centers in 
Missoula and Billings are state operated.10 
The combined capacity of the five prerelease centers 
is 132 beds, with 12 beds reserved for female offenders. 
All of the centers are nonsecure, minimum security. Their 
purpose is to encourage and assist the offender with 
employment, family relations and citizen participation, and 
to promote offender stability in the community. To be 
eligible for placement in a prerelease center an inmate must 
be within one year of parole and, typically, be convicted of 
a non-violent offense. The prison as well as a local 
screening committee must approve a center placement, while 
final approval rests with the Correction Division 
Administrator. An offender is seen as successfully 
completing prerelease when he/she is "considered 
38 
economically stable, free of chemical dependency, and 
capable of living a constructive life."11 
The daily per capita costs of incarceration in the 
prerelease centers is comparable to, or slightly higher 
than, the cost of incarceration in the state prison. The 
costs per day for all of the centers for fiscal year 1988 
are as follows:12 
Missoula Prerelease $31.96 
Billings Prerelease $48.87 
Butte Prerelease $36.05 
Alpha House Prerelease $39.12 
Great Falls Prerelease $40.72 
The prerelease centers are all supervised by the 
Community Corrections Bureau and are classified as 
correctional institutions. 
Adult Probation and Parole Services 
Adult probation and parole services in the State of 
Montana make up the Community Correctional Services. 
Probation and parole services for adults in Montana are 
defined by statute as: 
Parole: The release to the community of a 
prisoner by the decision of the Board of Pardons 
prior to the expiration of his/her term, subject 
to conditions imposed by the board and subject to 
the supervision of the Department of 
Institution.13 
Probation: The release by the Court without 
39 
imprisonment, except as otherwise provided by law, 
of a defendant found guilty of a crime upon 
verdict or plea, subject to conditions imposed by 
the Court and subject to the supervision of the 
department upon direction of the Court.14 
Probation and parole services are divided into four 
geographic regions: Missoula has eleven officers; Helena 
has ten officers; Great Falls has seven officers; and 
Billings has ten officers. Billings has one additional 
officer assigned to intensive parole/probation supervision. 
Probationers and parolees are assigned to one of three 
levels of supervision: 
Maximum: Those assigned to this level must meet with 
their supervising officer at least twice a month. They must 
file monthly reports. 
Medium: Offenders assigned this level of supervision 
must meet with their assigned officer once a month. They 
must file monthly reports. 
Minimum: Offenders must meet with their assigned 
officer at least quarterly and file quarterly reports.1® 
Although there are administrative rules governing the 
Adult Probation and Parole services, it is the District 
Court Judge who grants probation and sets the conditions. 
"The department (Department of Institutions) shall supervise 
persons during their probation period in accord with the 
conditions set by a Court."16 In addition to supervising an 
offender, the probation officer also advises and consults 
with the probationer, encourages him/her, and keeps any 
40 
records that the Department of Institutions or the court may 
require. The probation and parole officer may also 
recommend, and the court may modify, any condition of 
supervision of sentence at any time.1*7 A sample probation 
agreement is listed in the appendices. 
The Montana State Board of Pardons is responsible for 
executive clemency and the granting of parole.1® The 
granting of parole for both male and female prisoners is 
subject to the statutory restrictions as defined in Section 
46-23-201 of the Montana Code Annote 1987. 
A prisoner must have served at least one-quarter of 
his/her sentence and at least one-half if he/she has been 
designated a dangerous offender. Offenders serving life 
sentences must serve at least 30 years, less "good time." 
Good time credits are awarded to an inmate for good conduct 
and/or satisfactory performance of an assignment. Parole is 
to be granted only in the best interests of society and not 
as a pardon. A prisoner must show a willingness to fulfill 
the obligations of a law-abiding citizen. The current 
policy at the prison allows for the early parole of 
prisoners when the prison population exceeds its maximum by 
96 inmates for more than 30 days. 
As of the end of fiscal year 1988 (based on daily 
averages), there were 3,222 adults on probation or parole in 
Montana; 451 adults on parole and 2,771 adults on some form 
of supervised probation.19 
41 
This chapter has provided an overveiw of the Montana 
Correctional System. The correctional facilities and 
services in Montana are both costly and are operating at or 
above capacity. The programs and services that are 
currently available in Montana are not sufficient to provide 
any substantial relief to the problem of overcrowding. The 
early release of offenders from prison and the diversion of 
offenders who would normally be sentenced to prison must be 
accompanied by an adequate program of supervision. 
The only correctional program in Montana not discussed 
in this chapter is the Intensive Supervised Probation 
program currently in use in the City of Billings, the 
Thirteenth Judicial District. This program, will be 
discussed in the following chapter. 
42 
ENDNOTES 
1. Montana Board of Crime Control, Crime in Montana: 
1988 Annual Report, Criminal Justice Data Center, (Helena, 
Montana) 1988: p. 3-16. 
2. MONTANA, Department of Institutions, Corrections 
Division Annual Report Fiscal Year 1988, (Helena, Montana) 
1989: 16. 
3. Ibid, p. vi - vii. 
4. Corrections Division Annual Report, p. 29. 
5. Munzenrider, Rita. "Slower parole rate predicted." 
Billinqs [Montana] Gazette, 8 August 1989: A-l. 
6. Correction Division Annual Report, p. 2. 
7. Ibid, p. 3. 
8. Ibid, p. 4. 
9. Ibid, p. 5. 
10. Montana Board of Crime Control. Criminal Justice 
Issues in Montana. 1980 - 1987, Data Book 1988, 1988: 8. 
11. Correction Division Annual Report, p. 7. 
12. Ibid, p. 8. 
13. General Provision - Board of Pardon, Montana Code 
Annotated, Sec. 46 - 23 - 103 (4) (1987): 554. 
14. Montana Code Annotated, Sec. 46 J 23- 1001 (4): 
563. 
15. Corrections - Division Annual Report, p. 49. 
16. Montana Code Annotated 987 Sec. 46 - 23 - 1011 (1): 
564. 
17. Ibid, p. 564 - 565. 
43 
554. 
18. Montana Code Annotated, 1987 Sec. 46 - 23 
19. Corrections Division Annual report, p. 47. 
- 104 
44 
CHAPTER 5 
INTENSIVE SUPERVISED PROBATION IN MONTANA 
This chapter defines, discusses and illustrates the 
concept of intensive supervised probation. The current 
limited use of ISP in Montana is described and examined, 
including discussion of eligibility of offenders and 
supervision techniques. 
Intensive supervised probation can be defined as a 
program under which offenders are placed on probation with 
their freedom of movement more strictly and closely 
supervised than has traditionally been the case with 
conventional probation. Petersilia and Turner refer to ISP 
as "tougher than traditional probation, but less punitive 
and costly than imprisonment."1 Champion defines intensive 
supervised probation as "something more than standard 
probation but less than incarceration."2 The Montana Board 
of Crime Control defines intensive supervision as: 
Generally, the confinement of convicted felons at 
their place of residence in the community, under 
supervision of a probation and parole officer, in 
which a felon may normally leave the residence 
only to go to work or attend treatment programs. 
Depending on the type of intensive supervision, 
the felon may also be electronically monitored.3 
45 
Typically, the probationer under intensive supervision 
would have more frequent contacts with a probation officer, 
confinement to home or place of employment, strict curfew, 
and any number of other restrictions necessary to closely 
monitor the offender's activities. 
Eligibility of an Offender 
There are currently at least twenty-six states that 
have instituted some form of intensive supervised probation 
or house arrest programs. The specific eligibility criteria 
for an offender to participate in these programs are often 
as varied as the number of jurisdictions utilizing ISP 
programs. However, there is a certain amount of uniformity 
in the overall eligibility criteria.*4 
Most of the intensive supervised programs appear to be 
geared toward nonviolent or first time offenders. Programs 
typically exclude offenders who have been convicted of 
violent offenses, i.e. murder, rape, assault, and robbery. 
In Oregon, for example, the criteria for intensive 
probation exclude persons with any history of violence, not 
just those who are arrested for violence.® 
In the New Jersey intensive supervision program, only 
offenders who are already serving a sentence in prison are 
eligible for the program and then only if they are serving a 
sentence for a nonviolent offense. The offender must 
successfully complete two ninety day periods in the 
46 
community before being completely accepted. Electronic 
monitoring is required in some cases.6 
The Georgia Intensive Probation Supervision Program 
targets those who are not serving time in prison and among 
these, those who are high risk but are at the same time 
nonviolent offenders. Offenders who would have normally 
been sent to prison may be placed in the ISP program 
instead.^ 
Most ISP programs seem to have some uniformity with 
regard to criteria for participation and also for standards 
and means of supervision for those in the programs. For 
example, the caseload size for probation officers in ISP 
appears to be substantially lower than the caseloads of 
probation officers practicing the conventional type of 
supervision.0 
Working Models of ISP 
The key to a successful program for supervising 
offenders is close monitoring of the offender's activities 
and movement. Supervision must fit the needs of the 
particular offender but at the same time, adequately protect 
the interest of the public. There should be as many 
conditions or requirements as are necessary to make an 
offender accountable and to allow for the offender to 
progress and hopefully succeed in a program. The terms or 
conditions of probation range from electronic monitoring of 
47 
his/her whereabouts to restitution, employment/education, 
chemical dependency counseling, treatment, curfew, fees, 
fines, or any combination of these. Most of the models in 
use incorporate these conditions as well as other 
stipulations. 
Don Smarto, presenting one such model, feels that 
intensive supervised probation can be successful and that an 
offender who might fail after incarceration could indeed 
make progress under an intensive supervised probation 
program having the following characteristics: 
1. The probation officer should have a 
small caseload (between fifteen and 
twenty offenders). 
2. The criminal history of the offender 
must be carefully reviewed, looking for 
habitual criminal patterns and past 
failures with probation. Out of this 
study, the probation officer would 
develop a specific case strategy to help 
the offender solve his problems. 
3. The conditions of the supervision should 
include therapy, when necessary, and 
support from additional professionals, 
including drug counselors and clinical 
psychologists. 
4. The probation officer should meet with 
the offender two to three times a week 
for at least one hour. 
5. The probation officer should make 
regular home visits, verify employment, 
and network with other professionals who 
interface with the offender. 
6. Any violations, technical or criminal, 
should be brought to the court's 
attention swiftly. 
48 
7. The probation officer's supervisor 
should carefully monitor the 
probationer's compliance with agreed 
goals. 
Smarto also suggests that technical violations alone 
should not be the only basis for terminating the intensive 
supervision. Only a new criminal conviction should result 
in resentencing or prison.® 
The State of Georgia appears to be^the frontrunner, 
having the most emulated ISP program in the United States. 
In Georgia the supervision standards include but may not be 
limited to: 
(1) Five face to face contacts per week with an 
officer, (2) 132 hours of mandatory community 
service work, (3) mandatory curfew, (4) mandatory 
employment, (5) regular records checks, and (6) 
routine and unannounced alcohol and drug 
testing.xo 
In the Georgia ISP program, caseloads are kept as low 
as 25. Two officers work together as a team on the same 
caseload. One visits the offender at home and at his place 
of employment. This officer functions in an enforcement 
capacity and provides surveillance of the offender. The 
second officer operates in a more conventional capacity, in 
an agency office. In Georgia, offenders are all nonviolent 
and would normally have been sent to prison. The program is 
supported by fees imposed by the sentencing judge. Savings 
to the state of Georgia are impressive. The daily expense 
for supervising a probationer in Georgia's Intensive 
49 
Supervised Probation was found to be under $5 a day, while 
the daily cost for incarceration in a Georgia penal facility 
is $30 a day and up.11 
In Illinois, inclusion in the Intensive Probation 
Supervision program is limited to first time offenders not 
convicted of violent crimes or drug offenses. A presentence 
investigation must show that offenders do not pose a danger 
to the community. 
Offenders in the Illinois ISP program must go through 
the following three phases, each of which must be completed 
before the offender can move on to the next: 
Phase I 
1. Duration is three months. 
2. There is face-to-face contact between probationer 
and the ISP officer at least five times per week. 
3. The Probationer must submit verification of 
employment or attend appropriate job training 
courses. 
4. A 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. curfew must be observed, 
unless employment or community service 
obligations alter the requirement. 
5. Arrest checks are made weekly. 
6. The probationer is required to perform a minimum 
60 hours of community service. 
7. Drug testing may be conducted at anytime. 
Phase II 
1. Duration is from three to six months. 
2. Face-to-face contact is required between 
probationer and the IPS officer three times per 
50 
week. 
3. Curfew regulations are more relaxed. 
4. Community service of 40 hours is required. 
5. Drug testing is continued. 
6. Arrest checks are made weekly. 
7. Offenders must submit verification of employment 
and continue to attend appropriate job training 
courses. 
Phase III 
1. Duration is a minimum of six months. 
2. All requirements of previous phases are continued, 
but at a "less intense level."12 
The typical case load for a probation officer 
operating in the conventional probation setting is anywhere 
from thirty to one hundred-fifty depending on the 
jurisdiction and the type of supervision required. The 
caseload recommended in the ISP models cited is twenty-five. 
Therefore, ISP programs will necessitate increase in the 
number of officers needed. 
ISP in Montana 
Montana is currently utilizing intensive supervised 
probation in one jurisdiction, the Thirteenth Judicial 
District in Billings. The ISP program in Billings is funded 
by the state legislature and a federal grant written by Jim 
Pomeroy of the Community Corrections Bureau, Montana 
Department of Institutions.13 
51 
The Montana Intensive Supervision Project with 
electronic monitoring was designed to "provide supervision 
for chemically dependent offenders who would otherwise be 
sentenced to prison and parole violators who would have been 
returned to prison.14 
The stated goals and objectives of the program are as 
follows! 
Goal 1: To provide a cost-effective sentencing 
and/or placement option that satisfies punishment, 
public safety and treatment objectives. 
Objectives: 
1.1 Provide a cost-effective community option for 
offenders who otherwise would be incarcerated. 
1.2 Promote public safety by providing surveillance and 
risk control strategies indicated by offender 
risk/needs profiles. 
1.3 Increase the availability of treatment resources to 
meet offender needs. 
1.4 Promote crime-free lifestyles by requiring program 
participants to be employed and/or attend school, 
to avoid alcohol/drug use and to make restitution. 
Goal 2: To decrease burdens of substance abuse 
related crimes on the criminal justice system. 
Objectives: 
2.1 Redirect behavior from crime by promoting a 
substance-free lifestyle. 
2.2 Enhance the use of community resources in the 
identification, control and treatment of chemically 
dependent offenders. 
2.3 Increase the likelihood of successful offender 
reintegration within the community. 
2.4 Provide an alternative to incarceration in Montana 
State Prison. 
52 
2.5 Provide information relevant to sentencing 
decisions, parole conditions, and admission to 
intensive supervision programs.155 
The client selection criteria call for assessment of 
offender risk. In making this assessment the likelihood of 
an offender posing a threat to the community or committing 
new offenses is considered. Those potential clients 
designated as non-dangerous will receive priority for 
selection. Offenders who are known to be assaultive may be 
excluded. All clients must be sentenced by a Montana 
District Court prior to being admitted into the program and 
those offenders with a history of drug abuse or chemical 
dependency will be considered likely candidates for the 
program. The reason for selecting offenders with a history 
of drug abuse or chemical dependency is that their usage can 
be closely monitored.16 
The client caseload is limited to 31, shared by two 
officers. 
The referral for each candidate is prepared by the 
intensive supervision officer and contains the following 
information: 
1. Referrals for the ISP will originate from: 
- District Court 
- Probation/Parole Hearing Officers 
2. The Intensive Supervision Officer will: 
- Assess risk/needs. 
- Document history of chemical dependency. 
53 
- Complete referral packet and submit to 
screening committee. 
- Committee will review material and respond to 
referral within 5 working days. 
3. The referral packet is to be prepared by the 
Intensive Supervision Officer and will contain the 
following information: 
- Completed risk/needs assessment form. 
- Pre-sentence reports as well as copies of 
criminal history and summation of 
institutional behavior if applicable. 
- Information pertaining to screening and/or 
assessment of chemical dependency. 
- Complete information on offense as charged, not 
just offense as pled. 
- Any other information available that will 
assist the ISP staff in screening referrals.1,7 
All of the referral materials are screened by a 
committee made up of the Regional Supervisor, ISP officer 
and an optional member of the 13th Judicial District: The 
next step is an orientation meeting between the offender and 
an ISP officer. During the meeting, the following 
procedures are accomplished: 
1. Contracts and special conditions are 
reviewed to insure the offender's 
understanding. 
2. A deposit of one hundred dollars 
($100.00) is collected from the 
offender for utilization of electronic 
monitoring equipment. The deposit is to 
be made in the form of a money order. 
3. Referrals are made to other agencies for 
evaluations, recommendations and/or 
treatment. Specific time frames for 
initial contacts with these programs 
will be included. 
4. A photograph of the offender is made and 
54 
placed in the file. A copy is sent to 
local law enforcement officials. 
5. Electronic monitoring equipment is 
issued and instructions in its use and 
. maintenance are provided. 
6. A list is submitted by the offenders of 
all persons residing in his/her home and 
all persons that may visit his/her home. 
Both lists are reviewed by ISP and are 
subject to the ISP officer's approval. 
Visitors presently under probation and 
parole supervision or having lengthy 
criminal histories may be unauthorized 
to visit the participant's home. 
7. The status of offender's home telephone 
is verified by the ISP officer. 
8. An initial, individualized contract plan 
of supervision is developed. The 
individualized contract plan will be 
revised prior to each phase change. The 
treatment needs and referrals based on 
Risk/Needs Assessment and other 
available information, reporting 
schedule, curfew hours, and community 
service schedule are outlined in the 
plan. 
This intensive supervised probation program closely 
resembles the Georgia program. Only those clients who 
complete Phase II programming will be considered as 
candidates for referral to Phase III (traditional 
supervision). A contract must be signed prior to beginning 
each new phase. All clients and collateral contacts will be 
documented in the ISP Officer's chronological log. 
All clients must remain in Phase I for a minimum of 60 
days and are required to maintain a drug-free lifestyle. 
Clients must submit to at least one drug test per week. 
55 
which will utilize the breath analyzer and urinalysis. 
Random testing will also be conducted at the discretion of 
the ISP officer. Other requirements for clients will 
include face-to-face contacts with ISP officer twice a week 
and telephone contacts throughout the week. The ISP officer 
will also make random collateral checks with schools, 
employer, and any counselor the offender may be seeing. 
Clients most maintain a strict curfew. Curfew hours 
will be monitored by electronic equipment, home visits, 
phone calls, and by law enforcement officers. 
Each client must verify 40 hours of employment or 
educational programming per week. Clients must also 
complete at least 40 hours of community service in the first 
phase. 
In addition, there are requirements that clients seek 
employment, verify all activities, keep a running log of 
time and dates and turn in all logs and contacts at the end 
of each week. A client must successfully complete all of 
the requirements for each phase before moving into the next 
phase. 
Phase II status lasts a minimum of 120 days. The drug- 
free lifestyle and testing continue in phase II just as with 
phase I. Face-to-face contacts with the offices are 
decreased to once a week in this phase and telephone contact 
with the ISP officer is weekly. 
The home visits will continue, as will contacts by law 
56 
enforcement and corrections personnel. The electronic 
monitoring will be continued if deemed necessary by the ISP 
officer. The requirements for employment or education 
continue and there is a continuation of the community 
service, 40 more hours in this 120 day phase. 
The third and final phase is basically the same as the 
second phase except that offenders must remain on maximum 
supervision for at least 90 days and supervision is by a 
regular probation or parole officer other than the ISP 
officer. Drug testing continues, but face-to-face contacts 
with the officer are now limited to twice a month. Although 
they are not required to perform community service during 
the third phase, clients must comply with all other 
requirements and conditions. 
Other conditions that may be imposed on clients 
throughout the three phases of ISP include, but are not 
limited to, making restitution to victims, individual 
counseling, chemical dependency counseling or other 
treatment programs.1® 
The purpose of the discipline is to provide closely 
monitored supervision in order to protect the community and 
at the same time maintain the offender in the least 
restrictive environment possible. For those who violate the 
rules, the disciplinary procedures are progressively more 
severe. The sanctions progress in intensity from the use of 
stricter curfews to incarceration or possible return to the 
57 
State Prison. Alternatives involve increased testing for 
alcohol or drugs, more frequent office visits, increased 
electronic monitoring, additional community service, or more 
stringent modification of the probation/parole contract 
agreement.19 
A formal description of the three-phase system as well 
as an outline of disciplinary procedures can be found in 
Appendix B. 
After successfully completing the program at the end 
of nine months, the client will be considered for 
traditional probation/parole supervision.20 (The electronic 
monitoring system and procedure are explained in Appendix 
C) . 
At the present time, Billings is the only region in 
the state of Montana utilizing an ISP program. The original 
grant expired in 1988 and the Montana Legislature has 
continued to fund it. Currently, there is a proposal to 
fund a similar project in Missoula. 
Intensive Supervised Probation and Parole has the 
potential of providing quality supervision of offenders. 
The important aspects of such a program include determining 
the eligibility of participants. This chapter has shown, in 
fact, that ISP does work in other jurisdictions. It appears 
to be working in Montana on a limited basis. 
The next chapter will outline a proposal recommending 
adoption of ISP for Montana. The proposal will include the 
58 
costs effectiveness as well as the benefits of implementing 
such a program on a statewide basis. 
59 
ENDNOTES 
1. Peters!lia, Joan and Turner, Susan, "Reducing Prison 
Admissions: The Potential of Intermediate Sanctions, The 
Journal of State Governments. Vol. 62 No. 2 (March, April 
1989): 65. 
2. Champion, Dean J., Felony Probation: Problems and 
Prospects. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988: 22. 
3. Montana Board of Crime Control, "Criminal Justice 
Issues in Montana," Data Book 1988: 84. 
4. Elenbaas, David. Alternative Sentencing: A review. 
A Report Prepared for the Criminal Justice and Corrections 
Advisory Council, April 1988: 17. 
5. Peters!lia and Turner, 66. 
6. Petersilia, Joan, Expanding Options for Criminal 
Sentencing, Santa Monica, California, The RAND Corp., Nov. 
1987: 19 - 21. 
7. Erwin, Billie S. and Bennett, Lawrence D., New 
Dimensions in Probation: (Rockville, Maryland: National 
Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Jan. 1987: 
2. 
8. A more detailed description of alternative 
sentencing and Intensive Supervised Probation programs can be 
found in Expanding Options for Criminal Sentencing, Joan 
Petersilia, the Rand Corp. Santa Monica, California, 1987. 
9. Smarto, Don, Justice and Mercy. Wheaton, Del: 
Tyndale House Inc. 1987: 158 - 159. 
10. Erwin and Bennett, 2. 
11. Anderson, George M., "Probation Its Unfulfilled 
Potential," America. April 6, 1985: 282. 
60 
12. Bensinger, Gad J. and Seny, Magneus., "Probation in 
Illinois: Some New Directions," Federal Probation. 50: 66, 
1986: 73. 
13. For a detailed exploration of the Montana Intensive 
Probation project, objectives and goals, see the Intensive 
Probation Project Manual, Community Correction Division, State 
of Montana, Department of Institutions. 
14. Intensive Supervision Program Manual. Community 
Corrections Division, State of Montana. 
15. bid, 1. 
16. Ibid, p. 3. 
17. Ibid, p. 3 - 4. 
18. Ibid, p. 7 - 10. 
19. Ibid, p. 10 - 12. 
20. For a full explanation of the Intensive supervised 
program see the Intensive Supervision Program Manual, Community 
Correction Division, State of Montana, 1987. 
61 
CHAPTER 6 
PROPOSAL FOR ISP IN MONTANA 
This chapter will look at population projections for 
the State Prison and review the cost associated with 
incarceration. ISP will be recommended as a means of 
reducing prison population at a cost lower than that of 
incarceration. The chapter will also discuss some 
anticipated problems with implementation as well as some 
social and moral implications if ISP is implemented. 
Cost Comparisons In Montana 
Projections are only as accurate or realistic as the 
data utilized in making them. There are several factors 
that permit forecasts of prison population; length of stay, 
crime rate and statutory requirements. The Montana 
Department of Institutions has made correctional institution 
population projections for 1989 through 1995. These were 
based on a combination of assumed future admissions, length 
of stay, and the projected state population. They were 
derived using a program marketed by the Criminal Justice 
Statistics Association named impact.1 
62 
The Department of Institution projections indicate a 
steady growth in prison population, length of stay, and 
total male institutional jurisdiction in the State, as shown 
in Table 1. 
TABLE 1; CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION POPULATION PROJECTIONS. 
FISCAL YEARS 1989 - 1995. 
Fiscal Year 
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 
Future Length of Stay 
(Mouths) 31 31.25 31.5 31.75 32.0 32.25 32.5 
Montana State Prison 1022 1059 1095 1118 1139 1157 1174 
Male Total Jurisdiction 1208 1245 1281 1304 1325 1343 1360 
Source: Corrections Division. Annual Report 1988. 
The cost per day of incarceration is not included in 
the Department of Institutions projections, however, the 
current cost per inmate per day for incarceration at Montana 
State Prison is $36.42. The Swan River Forest Camp costs 
$48.62 per day and the Pre-release centers range from $31.96 
to $48.87.2 
In 1988 there were 3,222 individuals on adult 
probation or parole in Montana. Not including one ISP 
officer currently operating in Billings, there are thirty- 
eight probation and parole officers in the state: Region I- 
Missoula has eleven. Region II Helena has ten. Region III 
Great Falls has seven, and Region IV Billings has ten. The 
active caseloads of each officer range from 70 to 123 
offenders. The state's overall average caseload is eighty- 
63 
four.3 In 1988 the cost of supervision per 
probationer/parolee per day was about $3.13, Including 
administrative costs and equipment.^ 
The Intensive Supervised Program in Billings 
supervises 21 clients at a cost of $12.95 per day, including 
cost of training, equipment, and operating expenses. When 
the total cost of electronic wristlets and verifiers 
($66,161.00) is deducted the daily cost of supervision drops 
to $4.32 a day per client supervised.® Hence, even with the 
higher cost of $12.95 per day to supervise offenders, a 
savings of $176,678.25 a year is realized, compared to costs 
if the twenty-one clients on ISP were incarcerated in the 
State Prison for the same period. 
Eligible Offenders 
According to Randy Gowen, ISP officer in Billings, 
there doesn't appear to be a potential problem of eligible 
offenders for intensive supervision. The selection 
criteria, as stated in the Intensive Supervised Probation 
Manual, calls for clients who are nonviolent, don't pose a 
risk to the community, and have a history of drug/alcohol 
problems. 
Based on information provided by Theodore Clack, a 
research analyst with the Montana Department of 
Institutions, as of June 30, 1989 there were 1,421 inmates 
in Montana correctional institutions. The figure provided 
64 
by Clack includes females and all offenders in the five 
prerelease centers. Of the 1,421 inmates in fiscal year 
1989, 409 were classified as violent offenders. those 
convicted of assault, rape, robbery, murder and kidnapping. 
Excluding those convicted of a combination of offenses and 
drug offenders there were 452 incarcerated for nonviolent 
offenses.6 
The 452 nonviolent inmates at Montana State Prison 
are potential candidates for ISP. Also eligible for ISP 
would be those who come before a District Court for 
sentencing on new convictions. It is difficult to determine 
how many of these offenders would be first-time offenders; 
however those convicted of nonviolent offenses would be 
possible candidates for ISP. 
The crime rate for Montana in 1988 indicates a total 
of 32,183 reported crimes in the State. The three property 
crimes, burglary, larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft, 
accounted for 97.1 percent. Violent crimes, homicide, rape, 
robbery, and aggravated assault, accounted for 2.9 percent 
of the total.^ These figures are based on the seven common 
crimes used in the state crime index: homicide, rape, 
robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle 
theft. 
The total number of criminal cases filed in Montana's 
District Courts is substantially lower than the total number 
of offenses committed in a given year. The latest year in 
65 
which records are available, 1987, indicates that there were 
less than 4,000 criminal cases or 10.4% of the total number 
of cases filed.® 
Based on the available data a conservative estimate 
would indicate that the majority of criminal cases filed are 
for nonviolent offenses. There doesn't appear to be a 
shortage of potential eligible candidates for participation 
in an Intensive Supervised Probation/Parole Program. 
A Recommendation 
The proposal outlined in this chapter recommends that 
an Intensive Supervision Program could be instituted 
throughout Montana by implementing ISP in the major city 
within each of the four existing regions. This would make 
ISP available in Missoula, Helena, Great Falls, and 
Billings. The larger cities in Montana would be better 
equipped to provide services such as medical labs for drug 
and alcohol testing as well as employment opportunities, 
educational facilities and counseling services. 
The 1989 Montana Legislature has funded the Billings 
program for fiscal year 1990-91, this includes funding of 
one additional ISP officer. The cost of the Billings ISP 
for the first year was $99,276 with 75% funded through a 
grant from the Montana Board of Crime Control. This year's 
funding will include $24,225 for the new ISP officer 
position. Grade 13, step 7. After deducting the $66,000 
66 
initial outlay for electronic monitoring equipment, the 
budget for fiscal 1989-90 will be about $58,000.® Funding 
the remaining three regions will involve a substantial 
appropriation of money. Each of the three regions will 
require additional personnel as well as the one time 
purchase of the electronic monitoring equipment. 
It will also be necessary for each region to arrange 
with a medical laboratory to conduct backup verification of 
drug and alcohol tests. In Billings, this is accomplished 
by utilizing Medical Labs of Billings, at a yearly cost of 
$780. It will also be necessary for each region to contract 
for jail space. The local jails will be used to hold 
violators and will cost as much as $45.00 per day per 
inmate. 
The combined budgets of the three new regions, 
including the Billings ISP program with a budget of $81,726 
would be $489,729 for the first year. Since the one time 
purchase of the wristlets and the electronic monitoring 
system would not be included in future allocations, the cost 
of each program will be reduced by $66,000 after the first 
year. There would also be a combined reduction of about 
$33,000 for purchase of three vehicles for the three new ISP 
Programs. The total to be budgeted for the second year of 
ISP in Montana would be approximately $258,729. This figure 
does not include pay raises or increases in the cost of 
laboratory services. 
67 
Each regional office would supervise no more than 31 
clients. Clients would be required to pay a $100 deposit 
upon acceptance in the program. This money would be used to 
cover any damage to the electronic wristlet. 
During the first year of statewide operation the 
total cost per day for each supervised client would be about 
$13.50. After the first year with the initial outlay for 
electronic equipment and vehicles, the cost per supervised 
client per day will drop to about $7.10 per day. These 
figures are based upon the assumption of 25 clients per 
region. 
The proposed budget for each region for the first 
year of operation will be of $136,001 and all four of the 
newly created regional ISP programs will service a maximum 
of 31 clients at a time. Table 2 in the appendices provides 
an item breakdown of the proposed budget for the first year 
of operation in each new region. 
Potential Savinas to The State of Montana 
If ISP were implemented as suggested, in all four 
existing community correction regions, the savings to the 
State of Montana for new prison construction and 
incarceration at existing correctional institutions would be 
substantial. Even for the first year of operation, at 
$13.50 per day per supervised client, the net savings would 
be about $836,580. After the first year the amount of 
68 
savings to the State of Montana would increase to around 
$1,070,180 a year.10 This, of course, assumes that all of 
the ISP Programs were operating at the capacity of 25 
supervised clients per region. Even at Q0% of client 
participation, 20 per region, the savings to the State would 
be around $856,144 a year, after the first year. The 
potential savings to the State of Montana over a period of 
just five years could range from $4,280,720 to $5,350,900, 
with 100% participation of 25 clients participating in each 
region. 
The budget for the Montana State Prison for fiscal 
biennium 1990 - 1991, including the Swan River Forest Camp, 
is $27,905,862.11 After the first year a five year 
operation of ISP in each state Region, would constitute 
nearly 19 percent of the 1990 - 1991 biennium budget for the 
Montana State Prison. 
Implementation of ISP in the four Community 
Correction Regions has the potential of reducing prison 
construction and operation costs to the State of Montana. 
This would be accomplished by supervising nonviolent 
offenders on probation and parole in the community rather 
than incarcerating them at the Montana State Prison. ISP 
would likely reduce the current and anticipated crowded 
conditions at the Montana State Prison. 
Implementation Issues 
The paramount difficulty in implementing ISP will be 
69 
convincing the State Legislature that ISP is both desirable 
and practical as a statewide program. This report is an 
attempt to address these issues. 
With respect to getting cooperation from the courts 
the procedure for diverting offenders through the District 
Court is working quite well in the Thirteenth Judicial 
District. This suggests that Judges will need the statutory 
authority to amend sentences and divert offenders to ISP as 
a condition of probation. 
The selection criteria for statewide ISP will be 
modeled after those already used in the pilot project in 
Billings. The procedures are clearly spelled out in the 
Intensive Supervision Manual, Department of Institution. 
Other problems that could be anticipated might be 
slow start-up times and logistical and training problems 
regarding the use of officers in State regions who would be 
using ISP for the first time. In general, though experience 
indicates that once these matters are resolved the program 
goes smoothly. 
On August 22, 1989 Randy Gowen, ISP Officer in 
Billings, and Phil Sanderson, Probation Supervisor, were 
interviewed in Billings. Both Officers feel the program has 
worked and has the potential to continue to work well. It 
is Gowen's opinion that probationers who have never been to 
prison have a better success rate than parolees. The first 
phase of supervision under ISP appears to be the most 
70 
difficult for offenders.3-2 Randy Gowen noted that 
occasionally offenders have difficulty in getting phones and 
a suitable place to live. Those offenders in the program 
who enjoyed the most success were those living with or near 
family members and having a strong support system. 
There are currently 21 offenders in ISP, four are 
parolees and the other 17 are on probation. According to 
Gowen about sixty-five percent are currently employed; all 
would be in prison were it not for the availability of the 
ISP program. A total of 30 individuals have been in the 
program to date, eight placements have been revoked and the 
offenders returned to prison, while two have been graduated 
to regular probation. 
Policy Implications 
One important item that must be addressed when 
offenders are placed within a community is concern for the 
welfare and safety of citizens. In addition, it is of 
paramount importance that offenders not be released to the 
community if there appears to be a likelihood that they 
would commit new offenses. The issue of risk does not 
appear to be a major potential problem. There may be some 
in the community who are opposed to ISP, but the fact that 
participants will not include those convicted of a violent 
offense should help to alleviate their fears. This should 
be made clear to the community, and it would be advisable 
71 
that Community Corrections personnel make themselves 
available to educate the public as to the purpose as well as 
the process of ISP. 
The current trend among a majority of the public, 
appears to be a philosophy that is punitive in nature, and 
that punishment means incarceration. Some may believe that 
alternative sentencing and, in particular, ISP will allow 
law violators to get off too easy. The key here is that 
there may be more than one way to punish. It is a 
misconception to believe that ISP does not constitute a form 
of punishment. Offenders are held accountable for their 
past and present behavior; they must make restitution to 
their victims and in all cases be required to perform a 
substantial amount of community service. 
Of the most important elements of ISP is that 
offenders must be self-sufficient, employed or enrolled in a 
recognized vocational/educational program. 
Colson suggests that the issue isn't whether to 
punish but how to punish. Colson goes on to say that 
prisons are indeed necessary for violent offenders; however, 
about half of those currently behind bars could be 
classified as nonviolent offenders.13 
Sound alternatives to prison are available. 
Restitution, community service and intensive 
supervised probation are tough and effective 
punishments that limit freedom and place demands 
for compensation upon the offender.14 
72 
Intensive supervised probation and parole can relieve 
the crowding in Montana correctional institutions and 
provide for adequate offender supervision at a fraction of 
the cost of incarceration. Offenders will be held fully 
accountable for their actions. Hopefully they will be 
provided the opportunity to re-enter society with the 
ability and the desire to lead productive, crime free lives. 
73 
ENDNOTES 
1. Montana, Department of Institution, Corrections 
Division Annual Report 1988, (Helena, Montana) 1989: 51- 
52. 
2. Ibid, p. 3-8. 
3. Jim Pomeroy, Parole and Probation Workload, for 
fiscal year 1989. 
4. Department of Institutions, 1988 Budget, 
Corrections Division, p. 15. 
5. State of Montana, Community Correction Division, 
Intensive Supervised Program Manual, 1988: 31. 
6. Clack, Theodore H., Research/Analysis Manager, 
State of Montana, Department of Institutions, August 16, 1989 
7. Montana Board of Crime Control. Crime In 
Montana. Annual Report, 1988: 26. 
8. Montana Board of Crime Control, Criminal Justice 
Issue in Montana. Data Book, 1988: p. 58-59. 
9. Correction Division Manual, 1988: 31. 
10. These calculations are based on the figure of 
$36,42 per day to incarcerate an offender in the State 
Prison. This figure is provided by the Montana Department 
of Institutions, Corrections Division Annual Report, January 
1989: p. 3. 
11. State of Montana. Governor's Executive Budget: 
Fiscal Year 1990 - 1991, Ted Schwinden, Governor, Dec. 1, 
1988: S - '10. 
12. Randy Gowen and Phil Sanderson were interviewed 
at the Probation and Parole Office in Billings on August 22, 
1989. 
74 
13. Colson, Charles and Van Ness, Daniel W., "A 
Conservative Perspective: Alternatives to Incarceration," 
The Journal of State Governments, Vol. 62 No. 2, March/April 
1989: p. 59 - 60. 
14. Ibid., p. 60. 
75 
REFERENCES CITED 
REFERENCES CITED 
Anderson, George M. "Probation: Its Unfulfilled 
Potential." America. June 1985: 282-283. 
Bensinger, Gad J. and Seny, Magneus. "Probation in 
Illinois: Some New Directions." Federal Probation 50 
no. 66 (1986): 73. 
Bessette, Joseph M. "Prison Population Climbed 7.4% Last 
Year to 627,402." Criminal Justice Newsletter 20 no. 9 
(1989): 6. 
Carter, Robert M. and Wilkins, Leslie T. Probation and 
Parole. New York: Wiley, 1970. 
Champion, Dean J. Felony Probation: Problems and Prospects. 
New York: Praeger, 1988. 
Clack, Theodore. Letter to Author. 16 Aug. 1987. 
Colson, Charles and Van Neus, Daniel W. "A Conservative 
Perspective: Alternatives to Incarceration." The 
Journal of State Governments 62 no. 2 (1989): 59-61. 
Cerquone, Jeanne. "Florida's Computerized Control." 
Corrections Today, Juen (1987): 127. 
De Spoldo, Nick. "Halfway Houses: A Prison Alternative." 
America, (April 1985): 319. 
Dressier, David. Practice and theory of Probation and 
Parole. 2nd Edition, New York: Columbia, 1969. 
Elenbaas, David. "Alternative Sentencing: A Review," A 
Report Prepared for the Criminal Justice and 
Corrections Advisory Council, (April 1988). 
Erwin, Billie S. and Bennett, Lawrence D. "New Dimensions in 
Probation." National Institute of Justice, U.S. 
Department of Justice, (Jan. 1987) 2. 
Evrard, Frankline A. Successful Parole. Springfield: 
Thomas, 1971. 
Giardine, G.I. The Parole Process. Springfield: Thomas, 
1959. 
77 
Gowen, Randy. Personal interview. 22 Aug. 1989. 
Harris, N. Kay. "Reducing Prison Overcrowding and Non- 
Prison Penalties." Annals. AAPSS 478 (March 1985): 
155. 
"High Court Affirms Federal Sentence System." Bozeman 
(Montana] Daily Chronicle, 15 Jan. 1989: 14. 
Kaufman, Gerald. "The National Prison Overcrowding Project: 
Policy and Politic, A New Approach." ANNLS AAPSS 478 
(March 1985): 161-170. 
Lacay, Richar. "Considering Alternatives." Time, 2 Feb. 
1987: 60. 
Matlox, Jim. "Probation Monitors are Legal." Washington 
Crime News Service, Corrections Digest, 18 (Sept. 
1987) : 10. 
Montana Board of Crime Control. Crime In Montana: Annual 
Report. [Helena: Department of Justice, 1988]. 
Montana Board of Crime Control. Criminal Justice Issues In 
Montana a 1980-1987, Data Book 1988 (Helena Department 
of Justice]. 
Montana Code Annotated 1987. Sec. 46,53, [Helena: State of 
Montana, 1987]. 
Montana Department of Institutions. Corrections Division 
Budget 1988, (Helena: Department of Institutions 
1988] . 
Montana Department of Institutions. Community Corrections 
Division Intensive Supervision Manual. 1988 [Helena: 
Department of Institutions]. 
Montana. Governor's Executive Budget: Fiscal Years 1990- 
1991. Ted Schwinden, Governor, State of Montana. 
Munzenrider, Rita. "Slower Parole Rate Predicted." 
Bi1 lings [Montana] Gazette, 8 August 1989: A-l. 
Munzenrider, Rita. "State Prison Won't Accept New Inmates." 
Bi1 lings [Montana] Gazette, 12 July 1989: A-5. 
National Prison Project. "Status Report: The Courts and 
The Prisons." Criminal Justice Newsletter (Jan. 1989): 
4. 
78 
National Academy of Sciences. "Panel on Research on 
Rehabilitative Techniques: The Rehabilitation of 
Criminal Offenders Problems and Prospects." 
Washington D.C.. 1962. 
National Prison Project. "Status Report: The Courts and 
Prisons." Criminal Justice Newsletter. 1 (Jan. 1982) 
4. 
New Laws Could Add to Inmate Number." Bozeman [Montana] 
Daily Chronicle. 4 May 1984: 5. 
Unknown Author, "Perils of Probation." Time, 11 (Feb. 
1985): 37. 
Petersilia, Joan. "Future of Corrections." Criminal 
Justice Newsletter. 20 no. 12 (June 1989): 7. 
Press, Arec and McDaniel, Ann. "Doing Hardtime Fairly." 
Newsweek. 16 (Feb. 1987): 79. 
Pomeroy, Jim. Parole and Probation Workload for Fiscal 
Year 1989, Community Corrections Bureau, 1989. 
Petersilia, Joan and Turner, Susan. "Reducing Prison 
Admission: The Potential of Intermediate Sanctions." 
The Journal of State Governments 62 no. 2 (March, 
April 1989) 65. 
Quinn, Thomas. "Focus For The Future: Accountability In 
Sentencing." Federal Probation. 48 no. 2 (March 
1984): 10-18. 
Rocawich, Linda. "Lock'em Up." The Processive. (Aug. 
1987): 16. 
Sanderson, Phil. Personal Interview. 22 August 1989. 
"Sentencing Advocacy, The Sentencing Project." Criminal 
Justice Newsletter 20 No. 6 (1989): 6. 
"Sentencing, Reforms, Recidivism rates." Ciminal Justice 
Newsletter 20 no. 12-15 (June 1989): 7. 
"Sentencing Reforms Withhold Overall Due-Process Challenge 
Criminal Justice Newsletter 20 no. 12-15 (June 1989): 
1. 
Smarto, Don. Justice and Mercy. Wheaton: Tyndale. 1987. 
U.S. National Prisoner Statistics Bulletin. Prisoners in 
State and Federal Institutions on Dec. 31, 1982. U.S 
79 
Dept, of Justice. [Washington]: 31 (Dec. 1982): 52. 
U.S. Department of Justice Statistics Probation and Parole, 
Washington: Department of Justice. (1987): 2. 
U.S. National Institute of Justice. New Dimensions in 
Probation. U.S. Dept, of Justice. Rockville Maryland: 
(Jan. 1987): 2. 
Wison, George W. "Kentucky Cites 83% Success Rate With 
Intensive Supervision." Criminal Justice Newsletter 18 
no. 23 1(Dec. 1987): 7. 
80 
APPENDICES 
81 
Appendix A 
Options Considered by 
State Prison Overcrowding Projects 
82 
TABLE 2: OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY STATE PRISON OVERCROWDING 
PROJECTS 
Options Considered Present Status (as of 8/84) 
Adopted Rejected Other 
Colorado 
1. Expansion of prison capacity: adding bed space to 
existing facilities 
Adopted 
2. Increased use of transitional comunity corrections 
beds: 75 beds 
Inplesented 
3. Intensive probation supervision: diverting designated 
felons froi prison into intensive probation supervision 
Doubts about 
prison inpact 
4. Capping legislation: establishing a population liiit 
and providing for emergency release neasures to Maintain 
a desired population level 
vetoed by 
governor 
5. Site-selection authorized: authorizing state offic¬ 
ials to identify a site for construction of a corrections 
facility 
Passed 
6. Criminal justice conission: establishing a COMUS- 
sion to develop sentencing guidelines 
under 
consideration 
7. Extended parole: directing the parole board to use 
risk assessient in establishing length of parole 
supervision 
Michigan 
Passed 
1. Disciplinary credits Bill: penitting prison ad- 
linistration to give certain offenders tise off for 
good behavior; good tiie had been abolished by public 
referendui 
Passed 
2. Establishnents of the Sentencing Guidelines 
Couission 
3. Jail taergency Powers Act: established criteria 
by which county officials can release offenders 
early if the jail is over 951 of design capacity 
Passed State 
house;awaiting 
state senate 
action 
Passed 
effective 
3/83 
83 
4. Comunity Corrections Act: keeping certain 
offenders in the conunity who would otherwise 
be sent to prison 
5. Prison Overcrowding project appropriation: 
continuing the work of the Michigan Prison Over¬ 
crowding Project 
Adopted Rejected Other 
Position state¬ 
ment drafted by 
policy group 
and currently 
being drafted 
into a bill 
Passed 
Oregon 
1. Accelerated release bill: giving the governor 
the power to release state inmates np to 90 days 
early to reduce population to 95k of capacity 
Passed state 
house; but failed 
to he voted out of 
state senate Rules 
Committee 
2. Blocking enhancement legislation: blocking 
various bills designed to increase penalties for 
criminal behavior 
3. Facility development: supporting corrections 
division request for converting mental health fac¬ 
ility to a 350-bed medium-security prison 
4. Various proposals for sentencing reform 
5. Proposal to reform sentencing practices 
Only one 
enhancement 
hill passed 
the 1984 
legislative 
session; it 
concerned 
driving 
while intox¬ 
icated. 
Funds 
appropriated 
Hot supported by 
policy group: no 
impact analysis; 
no control for use 
of mandatory and con¬ 
secutive sentencing 
Active con¬ 
sideration 
by the Ore- 
gan POP 
South Carolina 
1. Sentencing Guidelines Conission: legislation 
continuing the commission and providing funds for staff 
Passed 
84 
2. Eaergency Powers let: penits the governor to 
release state imates up to 90 days early when 
prison population exceeds operating capacity 
3. Atendients to supervised furlough prograi: in¬ 
creasing ambers being released to supervised fur¬ 
lough and adding parole officers 
4. Intensive probation supervision 
5. Pretrial diversion 
6. Closing of the Central Correctional institution: 
Bnilt before the Civil Var 
Adopted Rejected Other 
Passed 
Passed 
Under con¬ 
sideration 
by policy 
group 
Dropped 
Being plan¬ 
ned by coi- 
littee of 
policy group 
and local 
governient 
officials 
7. Funds to continue operation of SCPOP Approved 
Sonrce: Kantian, 1985: 70-71. 
85 
Appendix B 
State of Montana ISP 
Phase System and Disciplinary Procedures 
86 
PHASE I 
The minimum standards are as follows: 
All ISP clients are required to complete all aspects of 
Phase I to be eligible for Phase II programming. 
Phase I requirements: 
1. All clients will be in Phase I status for a 
minimum of 60 days. 
2. All clients must maintain a "drug-free" lifestyle. 
This will be measured via: 
a. Urinalysis 
b. Breath analyzer 
All testing will be done on a random basis at the 
discretion of the ISP office. All clients will be 
subject to a minimum of one test per week. Any 
positive test results will require disciplinary actions 
and will inhibit a client from entering Phase II. 
3. Clients will be required to: 
a. Meet face-to-face with ISP officer twice 
weekly. (One of these contacts must be 
outside ISP office). 
b. Converse telephonically with ISP officer 
weekly. 
c. The ISP officer will make weekly collateral 
contacts with employer and/or counselor. All 
collateral contacts will be random at the 
discretion of the ISP officer. 
4. Phase I clients will be required to maintain 
specific curfew hours. The curfew hours will be 
monitored via: 
a. Electronic surveillance equipment. 
b. Home visits by ISP officer or his designee. 
c. Phone contact by Community Corrections 
personnel. 
87 
d. Local law enforcement officers. 
5. All Phase I clients are required to secure and 
maintain full-time employment and/or and 
educational program. 
The Phase I client must be capable of verifying 40 
hours of employment/educational programming 
weekly. 
6. All Phase I clients must complete a minimum of 40 
hours of verified community service. Additional 
community service hours may be required if client 
is unemployed. The additional hours are up to the 
discretion of the Intensive Supervision Officer. 
7. All Phase I clients must comply with all treatment 
program requirements as designated by ISP officer. 
8. All Phase I clients must comply with all 
conditions stipulated in his/her court order. 
9. Phase I clients accepted into the program who are 
unemployed must abide by the following conditions: 
- Contact a minimum of 10 prospective employers 
per day. 
- Submit a signature sheet to prospective 
employers. The signature sheet will be 
designed to verify time and date of prospective 
employer contact. The signature sheet is to be 
turned in weekly, or more often at the 
discretion of the ISP officer. 
- Program clients will keep a running "log" of 
times and dates of all prospective employer 
contacts. The log must include information 
pertaining to the participant's whereabouts 
between prospective employer contacts. The 
running "log" is to be turned into the ISP 
officer weekly. 
- Program clients who are terminated from 
employment will be subject to the previously 
stated conditions. The conditions will be in 
effect until the program participant secures 
employment. 
88 
PHASE II 
All clients will be required to successfully complete all 
requirements of their Phase I program for a minimum sixty 
days. If the ISP Officer feels that a clients is ready to 
progress to Phase II the client will be moved into Phase II 
of the program. 
1. Clients are required to remain on Phase II 
status a minimum of 120 days. 
2. Phase II clients must maintain a •'drug-free" 
lifestyle. This will be measured via: 
a. Urinalysis 
b. Breath analyzer 
- All testing will be done on a random basis with 
a minimum of one test per week. 
- Positive test results will prohibit clients 
from entering Phase II. 
3. Phase II clients will be required to: 
a. Meet face-to-face with ISP officer weekly. 
b. Converse telephonically with ISP officer 
weekly. The ISP officer will make a minimum 
of one collateral contact bi-weekly (ie; 
employer, CD Counselors). 
4. Phase II clients will be required to maintain 
specific curfew hours. The curfew hours will be 
monitored via: 
a. Home visits by ISP officer or his designee 
b. Phone contacts by Community Corrections 
personnel. 
c. Local law enforcement officers. 
d. If deemed appropriate by ISP officer electronic 
surveillance equipment will continue to be 
utilized. 
5. Phase II clients are required to maintain full¬ 
time employment and/or an educational program. 
Phase II clients must be capable of verifying 40 
hours of employment/educational weekly. Loss of 
89 
employment or with drawal from an educational 
program may result in a phase reduction. 
6. Phase II clients must complete a minimum of 40 
hours of verified community service. 
7. Phase II clients must comply with all 
treatment requirements as designated by ISP 
officer. 
8. Phase II clients must comply with all 
conditions stipulated in his/her court order. 
PHASE III 
All clients will be required to successfully complete all 
requirements of the Phase II program for minimum of 120 
days. If the ISP Officer and Regional Supervisor feel that 
a client is ready to progress to the third and final phase, 
the client will be moved into Phase III. 
1. Phase III clients will be transferred to a 
"standard" form of supervision. The Phase III 
client will be under maximum supervision and 
supervised by a probation & parole officer other 
than the designated ISP officer. The ISP client 
will remain on this status for a minimum of 90 
days. 
2. Phase III clients must maintain a "drug-free" 
lifestyle. This will be measured via blood alcohol 
level and urinalysis as deemed appropriate by his/her 
supervising probation and parole officer. 
3. Phase III clients will be required to meet face-to-face 
with probation and parole officer twice monthly. 
4. Phase III clients are required to maintain full-time 
employment and/or an educational program. Loss of 
employment or withdrawal from an educational program 
may result in phase reduction. 
5. Phase III clients must comply with all treatment 
requirements as designated by the probation and parole 
officer. 
6. Phase III clients must comply with all conditions 
stipulated in his/her court order. 
Source: Intensive Supervision Manual, Department of 
Institutions, 1988. 
90 
Appendix C 
Electronic Monitoring System 
91 
HITEK COMMUNITY CONTROL CORP. ON GUARD V SYSTEM 
Subsidiary of Digital Products Corp. 
ON GUARD-VERIFIER CLIENT INFORMATION SHEET 
As a person wearing the On Guard WRISTLET you are 
expected to follow certain rules as a condition for probation, 
parole or home supervision status. Failure to do so may result 
in loss of that status. 
The WRISTLET will not be harmed by normal human actions 
and may be exposed to water, heat, cold, etc. without concern. 
You may not remove the WRISTLET unless you are told by a 
supervisor or officer. It is a violation of this program to 
remove or attempt to remove the WRISTLET. 
You are supplied in addition to the WRISTLET with an On 
Guard Verifier unit, consisting of a Verifier wand and a 
Coupler box. This unit is to be connected to your home 
telephone. When you get home, you may install the Verifier by 
this simple procedure: 
1. Disconnect the wire from your telephone and plug it 
into the connector on the Coupler Box marked "LINE.'* 
It will only fit in one way. 
2. Take the short wire supplied with the Verifier and 
connect it between your telephone and the connector 
marked "PHONE" on the Coupler box. With this method 
you do not have to remove the telephone wire 
connected at the wall. 
3. Take the coiled cord supplied with the Verifier and 
connect it between the Verifier wand and the 
connection marked "VERIFIER" on the Coupler box. 
4. The Coupler box can be secured near the phone by 
using either the screws or the double-faced tape 
supplied with the Verifier. 
After installation of the Verifier your telephone should 
operate in the normal manner. Check the receiver to make sure 
you have a dial tone. If you do not have a dial tone, check to 
make sure the wires have been installed in the proper marked 
positions. If after checking you still do not have a dial 
tone, remove the Verifier, re-connect your telephone and call 
your control agency. 
If you have difficulty installing the Verifier or if your 
telephone is not equipped with a standard telephone jack, 
contact your supervision office at once. 
92 
HOW DOES THE ON GUARD SYSTEM AND WRISTLET WORK; 
During your curfew period(s), you will receive telephone 
calls at random times which will identify themselves as curfew 
supervision calls. The number of calls and the time of the 
calls will vary from day-to-day. It is even possible that on 
some days you will not receive a call. Each call will tell you 
what to do. For example: "State you name, the time and insert 
your WRISTLET." If someone else answers the phone, there will 
be a delay to allow you time to come to the phone. If the 
message has been completed by the time you get to the phone you 
can still insert your WRISTLET and complete a curfew check. As 
a minimum, you should always state your name before inserting 
the WRISTLET. ONLY THE PHONE WITH THE VERIFIER SHALL BE IN USE 
WHEN INSERTING THE WRISTLET. 
The WRISTLET will only fit into the Verifier in one 
direction and should be inserted so that it reaches the bottom 
of the opening. You can tell that it is inserted correctly 
when you hear a beep followed by four or more beeps. If you do 
not hear more than one beep you should contact your control 
agency by telephone immediately. 
REMEMBER!!! 
1. Wait at least 2 rings before.answering all calls. 
2. When you receive a curfew call wait until you hear the 
tone before you answer and insert your WRISTLET. 
3. Make sure that you respond to each curfew call. 
4. Call your control office immediately if for any reason 
you have been unable to successfully complete a call. 
5. Do not attempt to remove the WRISTLET, stretch the 
wristband, etc., unless authorized to do so. Removal should 
only be performed by a control officer. Exceptions for medical 
or other reasons should be reported immediately to the control 
agency. 
Local law enforcement agencies, medical facilities and 
the telephone company have been informed of this program. In 
the event of an emergency or problem, common sense should be 
used to assure your safety and well being. All exceptions to 
conditions of probation, parole or home supervision should be 
reported immediately to your control agency. 
Note; ALL WRISTLETS and VERIFIERS are the property of 
Digital Products Corporation. Your acceptance of the use of 
the WRISTLET and Verifier as a condition or probation/parole 
and/or early release confirms .your agreeing not to open or 
abuse this equipment. Opening, destroying, loss or theft of 
either item constitutes a crime punishable under the law. 
Control Agency Telephone Contact Number:  
Your Control Officer:   
Client Signature Date 
93 
Appendix D 
Miscellaneous Tables 
94 
TABLE 3: PROPOSED BUDGET FIRST YEAR FOR EACH REGION. 
Personnel 
Two Intensive Probation Officers $39,278.00 
Grade 13 step 7. 9172.00 
Total $48,450.00 
Contract Services 
Jail fees (60 days @ $40.00 $ 2.400.00 
per day. Total $ 2,400.00 
Equipment 
Automobile and Maintenance 
(fleet purchase). $12,500.00 
Alco Sensor Intoximeter $ 136.00 
Alco Sensor Mouthpiece 
On-Guard Central Electronic 
$ 25.00 
Monitoring System. $17,500.00 
31 Wristlets and verifiers 
@ $1,550.00 each. $48,050.00 
Refrigerator $ 450.00 
Total $78,661.00 
Ooeratina Expenses 
Urinalysis Reagents/31 tests $ 5,115.00 
per week @ $3.75 X 44 weeks. 
Supplies, materials, printing. 
Back-up urinalysis verification 
$ 595.00 
at a Medical Laboratory, to be 
used for positive results on 
$ 780.00 
the EMIT system 65 @ $12.00. 
Total $ 6.490.00 
Total Budget for on region. Grand Total $136,001.00 
TABLE 4; DISTRIBUTION OF PROBATIONER/PAROLE SUPERVISION 
BY LEVEL 
Probationers 
Maximum No. 
% Probationers 
% Total 
Medium No. 
% Probationers 
% Total 
Minimum No. 
% Probationers 
% Total 
New No. 
% Probationers 
% Total 
Parolees 
Maximum 
% Parolees 
% Total 
Medium No. 
% Parolees 
% Total 
Minimum No. 
% Parolees 
% Total 
New No. 
% Parolees 
% Total 
Total 
Fiscal Year 
1988 1987 1986 1985 
891 869 837 779 
32.2 32.1 33.2 31.9 
27.7 27.6 28.5 27.4 
581 605 559 551 
21.0 22.3 22.1 22.6 
18.0 19.2 19.0 19.4 
534 497 410 392 
19.3 18.3 16.2 16.0 
16.6 15.8 14.0 13.8 
764 738 718 721 
27.6 27.2 28.4 29.5 
23.7 23.5 24.5 25.4 
145 141 136 127 
32.1 32.0 33.1 31.8 
4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 
95 98 91 90 
21.0 22.2 22.1 22.6 
2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 
87 81 67 64 
19.2 18.4 16.3 16.0 
2.7 2.6 2.3 2.3 
125 120 117 118 
27.7 27.3 28.5 29.6 
3.9 3.8 4.0 4.2 
3,222 3,145 2,935 2,842 
Source: Corrections Division Annual Report, Montana Department 
96 
TABLE 5: ANNUAL ADMISSIONS TO MONTANA ADULT CORRECTIONAL 
PROGRAMS. FISCAL 1984-1988. 
Fiscal Year 
Proura® 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 
MSP 499 521 509 479 441 
SRFC 86 100 84 82 92 
MCC J1 J! M Ji Ji 
Subtotal:* 542 562 543 512 467 
BLSTC 19 23 20 17 13 
MLSTC 54 54 53 54 62 
Alpha 66 46 49 50 55 
BPRC 69 50 51 47 35 
6FPRC 57 52 Ji _44 21 
Subtotal 265 225 217 212 186 
Probation** 1264 1312 1207 1290 1418 
Parole 294 311 234 218 164 
Subtotal 1558 1623 1441 1508 1582 
TOTAL* m m isy 2020 m 
‘Excludes adiissions to SRFC and pre-release center, to eliiinate double counting. 
“Estiiated 
Source: Corrections Division Annual Report, Montana Departient of Institutions, 
January 1988: 17. 
97 
TABLE 6: AVERAGE DAILY POPULATIONS OF MONTANA ADULT 
CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS. FISCAL YEARS 1980-1988. 
Proaraa 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 
MSP 957.4 925.5 907.2 802.3 739.9 744.9 698.3 669.7 668.4 
SRFC 49.1 49.4 51.2 47.2 49.1 52.0 50.0 44.1 45.5 
WCC 35.2 34.4 30.1 25.3 17.0 20.0 2.0 
Subtotal: 
1041.7 1009.3 988.5 874.8 806.0 816.9 750.3 713.8 713.9 
BLSTC 9.6 10.6 9.3 8.6 6.7 8.0 10.1 11.2 11.1 
MLSTC 23.4 23.9 22.8 19.5 20.6 21.2 8.5 
ALPHA 30.5 24.4 21.2 22.3 24.0 23.6 21.7 13.3 1.4 
BPRC 32.2 26.1 25.5 20.4 14.2 
6FPRC 27.5 25.3 23.3 16.9 11.2 
Subtotal: 
123.2 110.3 102.1 87.7 76.7 52.8 40.3 24.5 12.5 
Probation: 
2771 2708 2524 2444 2248 2121 2173 1984 1944 
Parole: 451 441 411 398 366 345 353 323 316 
Subtotal: 
3222 3149 2935 2842 2614 2466 2526 2307 2260 
Total: < 4386.9 4268.6 4025.6 3804.5 3496.7 3335.7 3316.6 3045.3 2986.4 
Source: Corrections Division Annual Report. Montana Department of Institutions. 
January 1988: 16. 
98 
Appendix E 
Flowchart, Disposition of Alleged Offenders 
99 
TABLE 7 FLOWCHART, DISPOSITION OF ALLEGED OFFENDER 
ARREST 
-►CHARGES DROPPED 
DISTRICT COURT TRIAL 
•DISMISSAL, ACQUITTAL 
CONVICTION 
►RELEASE 
'DEFERRED SENTENCE- 
-SUSPENDED SERVICE- 
•PROBATION 
J 
►DISCHARGE 
*RETURN TO DISTRICT 
COURT HEARING 
►DIVERSION TO INTENSIVE SUPERVISION FOR VIOLATION 
(Supervision by Probation) 
INCARCERATION 
•'MONTANA STATE PRISON- 'SWAN RIVER FOREST CAMP 
WOMEN'S CORRECTIONAL CENTER 
►PRE-RELEASE CENTER- 
►SUPERVISED RELEASE- 
BOARD OF PARDONS(BOP) DISCHARGE 
•PAROLE l PROBATION TO FOLLOW*- 
- RETURN TO BOP 
.REMAIN ON 
PAROLE 
POSSIBLE PAROLE 
REVOCATION W/ RETURN 
TO INCARCERATION 
‘Probation nay be 1( continued; or 2) revoked with a sentence to prison to serve out the remainder, or 
to serve a new sentence it found guilty of a new crime; or 3) probation may be revoked with imposition 
of a new suspended or deferred sentence. Source: Montana Board of Crime Control.Data Book,1988: