The 1994 North Carolina Structured Sentencing Act led to the increased use of intermediate sanctions such as day reporting centers. This study evaluates offender targeting and program termination among a sample of 204 offenders who were sentenced to a day reporting center (DRC) in a southeastern North Carolina county. Despite sentencing guidelines, judges sentenced some offenders to the day reporting center who were ineligible. Issues of net-widening and judicial compliance are addressed. Results show that the rate of program termination was high. Logistic regression analysis shows some offender characteristics that affect the likelihood of termination from the DRC.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blomberg, T., & Lucken, K. (1994). Stacking the deck by piling up sanctions: Is intermediate punishment destined to fail?Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 62-80.
2.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Brasswell, M. C. (1989). Correctional treatment and the human spirit: A focus on relationship. Federal Probation, 53, 49-60.
4.
Byrne, J. M. (1990). The future of intensive probation supervision and the new intermediate sanctions. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 6-41.
5.
Clarke, S. H. (1994). 1994 supplement to law of sentencing, probation, and parole in North Carolina: The structured sentencing act of related legislation, 1993-94. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
6.
Clear, T. R., & Hardyman, P. L. (1990). The new intensive supervision movement. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 42-60.
7.
Diggs, D. W., & Pieper, S. L. (1994). Using day reporting centers as an alternative to jail. Federal Probation, 58, 9-12.
8.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
Larivee, J. (1990). Day reporting centers: Making their way from the U.K. to the U.S.Corrections Today, 52, 84-89.
10.
Lipton, D. S. (1995). The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
11.
McDevitt, J., Pierce, G., Miliano, R., Larivee, J. J., Curtin, E. L., & Clune, M. T. (1988). Evaluation of the Hampden County day reporting center. Boston, MA: Crime and Justice Foundation.
12.
Palumbo, D. J., Musheno, M., & Hallet, M. (1994). The political construction of alternative dispute resolution and alternatives to incarceration. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17, 197-203.
13.
Parent, D. G. (1990). Day reporting centers for criminal offenders—a descriptive analysis of existing programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
14.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Intensive supervision for high-risk probationers: Findings from three California experiments (R-3936-NIJ/BJA). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
15.
Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48, 12-17.
16.
Tonry, M. (1990). Stated and latent functions of ISP. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 174-191.
17.
Tonry, M. (1997). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
18.
Turner, S., Petersilia J., & Deschenes, E. P. (1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 38, 539-556.
