Evaluation of Day Reporting Centers for Parolees Outcomes of a Randomized Trial

• NCJ Number: 244876
• Journal: Criminology & Public Policy Volume: 12 Issue: 1 Dated: July 2013 Pages: 119-143
• Author(s): Douglas J. Boyle; Laura M. Ragusa-Salerno; Jennifer L. Lanterman; Andrea Fleisch Marcus
• Date Published: July 2013
• Length: 25 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2006-IJ-CX-0036
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Research (Applied/Empirical)

Annotation

This study examined the use of day reporting centers for parolees as a cost-effective means for reducing recidivism.

Abstract

This study compared participation and completion rates for parolees in New Jersey assigned to day reporting centers with those for parolees assigned to traditional supervision programs. The study found 50 percent of participants enrolled in the day reporting centers (DRCs) and 52 percent of participants in the orientation phase of traditional supervision completed their assigned conditions. The study also found that DRC participants were less likely to have an arrest for a parole violation during the first 90 days but more likely to have an arrest for a new offense compared to traditional supervision participants. The study found no significant differences in arrest rates between the two groups during both the 6-month and 18-month follow-up periods, however, DRC participants had higher conviction rates of a new offense (21.5 percent) compared to traditional supervision participants (8.8 percent). Data for this study were obtained from a sample of male parolees assigned to either a DRC (n=170) or traditional supervision (n=185). The following variables were included as outcome measures: study condition completion, time to study condition failure, arrests during the 90-day study period, arrests during the follow-up periods, convictions during the 90-day study period, convictions during the follow-up periods, and time to first arrest for a new offense. The findings from this study indicate that DRC participants are equally likely to fail their parole conditions when compared to participants in traditional supervision programs, suggesting that DRCs are not an improvement over traditional parole supervision as an alternative to incarceration. Study limitations are discussed. Tables, figures, and references