Research Note: When Is a Day Reporting Center Evaluation Not a Day Reporting Center Evaluation? Lessons From a Systematic Review

Abstract

We offer practical lessons from a systematic review of day reporting centers (DRCs). The review involved electronic searches, bibliographic reviews, and expert consultations followed by full text reviews of potentially eligible studies. Search results highlight the substantial role of nonacademic studies in the DRC literature, loose relationships between program characteristics and the DRC label, variations in the nature of both DRC and comparison group treatments, and a variety of methodological oversights in evaluation studies. We make a variety of recommendations both to program developers and evaluators, including an encouragement to focus on the content of programming alongside formal program titles.

Keywords

day reporting centers systematic review evaluation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

(2002). Overview of the Illinois DOC high-risk parolee re-entry program and 3-year recidivism outcomes of program. Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review, 11(1/2), 4–6. https://www.moralreconation-therapy.com/Resources/IL%20doc%20MRT.pdf

Andrews

D. A.

Zinger

Hoge

R. D.

Bonta

Gendreau

Cullen

F. T.

(2012). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. In Cullen

F. T.

Gendreau

(Eds.), The philosophy and practice of corrections (pp. 9–44). Routledge.

Belur

Thornton

Tompson

Manning

Sidebottom

Bowers

(2020). A systematic review of the effectiveness of the electronic monitoring of offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 68, 101686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.101686

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2016). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.

Bouchard

Wong

J. S.

(2018). Examining the effects of intensive supervision and aftercare programs for at-risk youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1509–1534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17690449

Boyle

Ragusa-Salerno

Lanterman

Marcus

(2013). An evaluation of day reporting centers for parolees: Outcomes of a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(1), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12010

Brownlee

I. D.

(1995). Intensive probation with young adult offenders: A short reconviction study. The British Journal of Criminology, 35(4), 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048549

Byles

J. A.

(1981). Evaluation of an attendance centre program for male juvenile probationers. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 23(3), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjcrim.23.3.343

Carr

Baker

Cassidy

(2016). Reducing criminal recidivism with an enhanced day reporting center for probationers with mental illness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2015.1124958

10.

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(7), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.583718

11.

Craddock

Graham

L. A.

(2001). Recidivism as a function of day reporting center participation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v34n01_06

12.

Diggs

D. W.

Piper

S. L.

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

13.

Donnelly

P. G.

Forschner

(1984). Client success or failure in a halfway house. Federal Probation, 48(3), 38–44.

14.

Duriez

S. A.

Sullivan

Latessa

E. J.

Lovins

L. B.

(2018). The evolution of correctional program assessment in the age of evidence-based practices. Corrections, 3(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2017.1343104

15.

Early

K. W.

Ryon

S. B.

Hand

G. A.

Blankenship

J. L.

(2014). Experimental community-based interventions for delinquent youth: An evaluation of recidivism and cost-effectiveness. Contemporary Issues in Juvenile Justice, 8(1), 4. https://digitalcommons.pvamu.edu/cojjp-contemporaryissues/vol8/iss1/4

16.

Empey

Erickson

(1972). Provo experiment: Evaluating community control of delinquency. Lexington Books.

17.

Gelsthorpe

Morris

(1983). Attendance centres: Policy and practice. Howard Journal of Penology & Crime Prevention, 22(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.1983.tb00476.x

18.

Gendreau

Goggin

Smith

(2001). Implementation guidelines for correctional programs in the “real world”. In Harland

A. T.

Forsythe

M. C.

(Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 247–268). Wiley.

19.

Gowdy

(1996). Historical perspective. In MacKenzie

D. L.

Herbert

E. E.

(Eds.), Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction (pp. 1–17). Diane Publishing Company.

20.

Hennigan

Kolnick

Tian

Maxon

Poplawski

(2010). Five-year outcomes in a randomized trial of a community based multi-agency intensive supervision juvenile probation program. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice.

21.

Hyatt

Ostermann

(2019). Better to stay home: Evaluating the impact of day reporting centers on offending. Crime & Delinquency, 65(1), 94–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717727739

22.

Kaeble

(2023). Probation and parole in the United States, 2021. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

23.

Killias

Gilliéron

Villard

Poglia

(2010). How damaging is imprisonment in the long-term? A controlled experiment comparing long-term effects of community service and short custodial sentences on re-offending and social integration. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9093-5

24.

Klein

J. P.

Moeschberger

M. L.

(2003). Survival analysis: Techniques for censored and truncated data (Vol. 1230). Springer.

25.

Kugley

Wade

Thomas

Mahood

Jørgensen

A. M. K.

Hammerstrøm

Sathe

(2016). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmg.2016.1

26.

Lanterman

J. L.

(2020). A multi-state survey of day reporting center models. Criminal Justice Studies, 33(2), 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2019.1684275

27.

Lloyd

Mair

Hough

(1994). Explaining reconviction rates: A critical analysis. Great Britain Home Office: Home Office Research and Statistics Department.

28.

Lowenkamp

Flores

A. W.

Holsinger

A. M.

Makarios

M. D.

Latessa

E. J.

(2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.004

29.

Lowenkamp

Latessa

Smith

(2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00388.x

30.

Lowenkamp

Paler

Smith

Latessa

(2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs? Federal Probation, 70(3), 3–8.

31.

Mair

Nee

(1992). Day centre reconviction rates. The British Journal of Criminology, 32(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048221

32.

Marciniak

(2000). The addition of day reporting to intensive supervision probation: A comparison of recidivism rates. Federal Probation, 64(1), 34–39.

33.

Markland

(1979). Periodic detention: A comparison of residential and non-residential centres. New Zealand Department of Justice.

34.

Maruschak

L. M.

Parks

(2014). Probation and parole in the United States, 2011. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

35.

McCann

(2012). Examining effective interventions for deep-end youth in the juvenile justice system [Dissertation]. Rutgers University Newark. Rutgers University Core.

36.

Miller

Sachs

N. M.

Saad

M. K.

(2019). PROTOCOL: Day reporting centres for reducing recidivism: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(1-2). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1023

37.

Myers

W. C.

Burton

P. R. S.

Sanders

P. D.

Donat

K. M.

Cheney

Fitzpatrick

T. M.

Monaco

(2000). Project back-on-track at 1 year: A delinquency treatment program for early-career juvenile offenders [Criminal Rehabilitation & Penology 3386]. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(9), 1127–1134. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200009000-00012

38.

Nagin

Sampson

(2019). The real gold standard: Measuring the counterfactual worlds that matter most to social science and policy. Annual Review of Criminology, 2(1), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024838

39.

Oselin

Mahutga

Flores

(2023). Day reporting centers and recidivism: The role of social support. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(10), 1526–1546. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231187414

40.

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(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802640958

41.

Parent

D. G.

(1990). Day reporting centers for criminal offenders: A descriptive analysis of existing programs. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

42.

Parent

D. G.

(1995). Day reporting centers. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

43.

Payne

B. K.

Gainey

R. R.

(1998). A qualitative assessment of the pains experienced on electronic monitoring. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 42(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X9804200207

44.

Perry

(1974). The effect of the youth attendance centre guided group interaction counselling program on the self-concept and on the rate of recidivism among selected juvenile delinquents [Master’s thesis]. University of Victoria.

45.

Petersilia

(1999). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned? Justice Research and Policy, 1(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.1.1.1999.9

46.

Petersilia

Turner

(1993). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

47.

Porter

Lee

Lutz

(2002). Balancing punishment and treatment: Alternatives to incarceration in New York City. Vera Institute of Justice.

48.

Resource Development Associates. (2019). Sonoma county AB 109 day reporting center outcome evaluation. Sanoma County Community Corrections Partnership.

49.

Roberts

(1989). Hereford and Worcester young offender project: First evaluation report. Hereford and Worcester Probation Services.

50.

Sarver

C. M.

Molloy

J. K.

Butters

R. P.

(2012). Intensive supervision (juveniles): Technical report. Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah.

51.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

52.

Sherman

L. W.

(2010). An introduction to experimental criminology. In Piquero

Weisburd

(Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 399–436). Springer.

53.

Taxman

F. S.

(2012). Probation, intermediate sanctions, and community-based corrections. In Wilson

J. Q.

Petersilia

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections (pp. 363–385). Oxford University Press.

54.

Thornton

Lee

(2000). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(2), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00161-4

55.

Veysey

Pratt

Gueretta

(2003). Elizabeth day reporting center: An outcome evaluation. Final Report.

56.

Weisburd

(2021). Electronic prisons: The operational use of ankle monitoring in the criminal legal system. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/gwlawpubs/docs/electronic-prisons-report

57.

West

Belisle

Sousa

(2019). Nevada's day reporting center: Results from a randomized controlled trial. University of Nevada Las Vegas: Center for Crime and Justice Policy.

58.

Wilson

D. B.

Bouffard

L. A.

Mackenzie

D. L.

(2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(2), 172–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854804272889

59.

Wong

J. S.

Bouchard

Gushue

Lee

(2019b). Halfway out: An examination of the effects of halfway houses on criminal recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(7), 1018–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18811964

60.

Wong

J. S.

Bouchard

Lee

Gushue

(2019a). Examining the effects of day reporting centers on recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(3), 240–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1583300