Better to Stay Home: Evaluating the Impact of Day Reporting Centers on Offending

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a quasi-experimental evaluation of community resource centers (CRCs)—nonresidential, day reporting centers employed for recent parolees. CRC participants (n = 2,789), drawn from release cohorts in 2008, 2009, and 2010, were matched using propensity scores to similar parolees who did not participate in CRC programming (n = 16,500). At the conclusion of the scoring and matching process, 2,789 CRC–parolee pairs were identified, including the full population of program participants. Outcome measures, including rearrest, reconviction, and parole revocation rates, after 1, 2, and 3 years are reported. Across all release cohorts, CRC participants were arrested and revoked at significantly higher rates, resulting in higher rates of returns to custody. Implications for correctional policy are considered.

Keywords

parole day reporting center community resource center propensity score matching community corrections recidivism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andersen

S. N.

Skardhamar

(2017). Pick a number: Mapping recidivism measures and their consequences. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 613-635.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Wormith

J. S.

(2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.

Apel

Blokland

A. A.

Nieuwbeerta

van Schellen

(2010). The impact of imprisonment on marriage and divorce: A risk set matching approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 269-300.

Apel

R. J.

Sweeten

(2010). Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. In Piquero

A. R.

Weisburd

(Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 543-562). New York, NY: Springer.

Austin

(2016). Regulating California’s prison population: The use of sticks and carrots. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664, 84-107.

Bahn

Davis

J. R.

(1998). Day reporting centers as an alternative to incarceration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 27(3-4), 139-150.

Becker

S. O.

Caliendo

(2007). Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. The Stata Journal, 7, 71-83.

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6, 1-22.

Bottcher

Ezell

M. E.

(2005). Examining the effectiveness of boot camps: A randomized experiment with a long-term follow up. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 309-332.

10.

Bowman

F. O.

III . (2014). Freeing Morgan Freeman: Expanding back-end release authority in American prisons. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 4, 9-48.

11.

Boyle

D. J.

Ragusa-Salerno

L. M.

Lanterman

J. L.

Marcus

A. F.

(2013). An evaluation of day reporting centers for parolees. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 119-143.

12.

Brunet

J. R.

(2002). Day reporting centers in North Carolina: Implementation lessons for policy makers. The Justice System Journal, 23, 135-156.

13.

Caplan

J. M.

(2007). What factors affect parole: A review of empirical research? Federal Probation, 71, 16-19.

14.

Carr

W. A.

Baker

A. N.

Cassidy

J. J.

(2015). Reducing criminal recidivism with an enhanced day reporting center for probationers with mental illness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(2), 1-18.

15.

Carr

W. A.

Cassidy

J. J.

(2016). Treatment attrition of probationers with mental illness from an enhanced day reporting center. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 694-707.

16.

Champion

D. R.

Harvey

P. J.

Schanz

Y. Y.

(2011). Day reporting center and recidivism: Comparing offender groups in a Western Pennsylvania County study. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 433-446.

17.

Craddock

(2004). Estimating criminal justice system costs and cost-savings benefits of day reporting centers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(4), 69-98.

18.

Craddock

(2009). Day reporting center completion comparison of individual and multilevel models. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 105-133.

19.

Craddock

Graham

L. A.

(2001). Recidivism as a function of day reporting center participation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(1), 81-97.

20.

Diggs

D. W.

Pieper

S. L.

(1994). Using day reporting centers as an alternative to jail. Federal Probation, 58(1), 9-12.

21.

Glaser

(1985). Who gets probation and parole: Case study versus actuarial decision making. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 367-378.

22.

Grattet

Lin

Petersilia

(2011). Supervision regimes, risk, and official reactions to parolee deviance. Criminology, 49(2), 371-399.

23.

Hyatt

J. M.

Barnes

G. C.

(2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 3-38.

24.

Imbens

G. M.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2007). Difference-in-differences estimation (Working paper). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economics Research.

25.

Kaeble

Glaze

Tsoutis

Minton

(2015). Correctional populations in the United States, 2014 (NCJ 249513). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.

26.

Kaeble

Marusschak

Bonczar

(2015). Probation and parole in the United States, 2014 (NCJ 249057). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.

27.

Kim

D. Y.

Joo

H. J.

McCarty

W. P.

(2008). Risk assessment and classification of day reporting center clients an actuarial approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 792-812.

28.

Kim

D. Y.

Spohn

Foxall

(2007). An evaluation of the DRC in the context of Douglas County, Nebraska a developmental perspective. The Prison Journal, 87, 434-456.

29.

Larkin

P. J

(2013). Parole: Corpse or phoenix. American Criminal Law Review, 50(2), 303-342.

30.

Langan

P. A.

Levin

D. J.

(2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 15, 58-65.

31.

LaVigne

Bieler

Cramer

Kotonias

Mayer

. . . Samuels

(2014). Justice reinvestment initiative state assessment report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

32.

Listwan

S. J.

Cullen

F. T.

Latessa

E. J.

(2006). How to prevent prisoners re-entry programs from failing: Insights from evidence-based corrections. Federal Probation, 70(3), 19-28.

33.

Loughran

T. A.

Wilson

Nagin

D. S.

Piquero

A. R.

(2015). Evolutionary regression? Assessing the problem of hidden biases in criminal justice applications using propensity scores. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 631-652.

34.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Holsinger

A. M.

Latessa

E. J.

(2001). Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of child abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 543-563.

35.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

(2005). Developing successful reentry programs: Lessons learned from the “what works” research. Corrections Today, 67(2), 72-77.

36.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Holsinger

A. M.

(2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77-93.

37.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457-471.

38.

MacKenzie

D. L.

Wilson

D. B.

Kider

S. B.

(2001). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 126-143.

39.

Maltz

M. D.

(1984). Recidivism. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

40.

Mantel

Haenszel

(1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.

41.

Marciniak

L. M.

(1999). The use of day reporting as an intermediate sanction: A study of offender targeting and program termination. The Prison Journal, 79, 205-225.

42.

New Jersey SPB (2004). Annual report. Trenton, NJ.

43.

Ostermann

(2009). An analysis of New Jersey’s day reporting center and halfway back programs: Embracing the rehabilitative ideal through evidence based practices. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 139-153.

44.

Ostermann

Hyatt

J. M.

(2017). When frontloading backfires: Exploring the impact of outsourcing correctional interventions on mechanisms of social control. Law & Social Inquiry.

45.

Ostermann

Salerno

L. M.

Hyatt

J. M.

(2015). How different operationalizations of recidivism impact conclusions of effectiveness of parole supervision. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 771-796.

46.

Parent

Byrne

Tsarfaty

Valade

Esselman

(1995). Day reporting centers (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

47.

Petersilia

(1997). Probation in the United States. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 22, 149-200.

48.

Petersilia

Turner

(1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 17, 281-335.

49.

Proctor

J. L.

(1999). The “new parole”: An analysis of parole board decision making as a function of eligibility. Journal of Crime and Justice, 22(2), 193-217.

50.

Reaves

B. A.

(2013). Felony defendants in large urban counties, 2009-statistical tables. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

51.

Rengifo

A. F.

Stemen

(2015). The unintended effects of penal reform African American presence, incarceration, and the abolition of discretionary parole in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 719-741.

52.

Rhine

Petersilia

Reitz

K. R.

(2015). Improving parole release in America. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 28(2), 96-104.

53.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

(2002). Observational studies. New York, NY: Springer.

54.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

(2005). Sensitivity analysis in observational studies. In Everitt

B. S.

Howell

D. C.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (pp. 1809-1814). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

55.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.

56.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33-38.

57.

Roy

Grimes

J. N.

(2002). Adult offenders in a day reporting center-a preliminary study. Federal Probation, 66(1), 44-51.

58.

Solomon

A. L.

Kachnowski

Bhati

(2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

59.

Spence

D. H.

Haas

S. M.

(2015). Predicting client success in day report centers: The importance of risk and needs assessment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54, 502-519.

60.

Steiner

Butler

H. D.

(2013). Why didn’t they work? Thoughts on the application of New Jersey day reporting centers. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 153-162.

61.

Taxman

F. S.

(2004). Offender and reentry: Supporting active participation in reintegration. Federal Probation, 68(2), 31-35.

62.

Travis

Keegan

S. M.

Cadora

Solomon

A. L.

Swartz

C. K.

(2003). A portrait of prisoner reentry in New Jersey. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

63.

Travis

Lawrence

(2002). Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

64.

Travis

Petersilia

(2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 291-313.

65.

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2016). Benefit-cost results: Day reporting centers. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

66.

Williams

D. J.

Turnage

T. A.

(2001). Success of a day reporting center program. Corrections Compendium, 26(3), 1-26.

67.

Wright

K. A.

Rosky

J. W.

(2011). Too early is too soon. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 881-908.