Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of an Intensive Community Corrections Program - Day Reporting Centers - For Parolees

• NCJ Number: 236080
• Author(s): Douglas J. Boyle, J.D., Ph.D.; Laura Ragusa, M.A.; Jennifer Lanterman, Ph.D.; Andrea Marcus, M.P.H.
• Date Published: August 2011
• Length: 53 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2006-IJ-CX-0009
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation

Annotation

This is an experimental evaluation of the relative effectiveness of an intensive community corrections program often referred to as a Day Reporting Center (DRC), in contrast to an intensive supervision parole condition (Phase I).

Abstract

The evaluation indicates that DRCs did not produce better outcomes than the control group (Phase I); and during some time periods, treatment effects for DRC participants compared to phase I participants had significantly worse outcomes. The outcomes favoring Phase I supervision is even more significant given the relative costs of the two programs, with phase I being significantly less expensive than DRC programming. The evaluators advise that these findings raise important policy and fiscal concerns about using the DRC model for supervising medium-risk and high-risk parolees; however, the findings should not be construed as indicating that Phase I supervision alone is sufficient. DRC is a program that brings groups of parolees together from throughout a municipality or larger geographic area in order to provide supervision, services, and programming. The DRC requires the participants to spend a significant amount of time daily with the group. Phase I, on the other hand, is an individual-based intensive supervision with referral to services and the imposition of additional conditions. The evaluation randomly assigned parolees to either DRC programming (n=198) or Phase I (n=204), and data were collected for 18 months after the 90-day study period. During the 90-day study period, DRC participants were more likely to be arrested for a new offense; whereas, Phase I participants were more likely to obtain employment than were DRC participants. During the 6-months immediately following study participation, DRC participants were more likely to be reconvicted of a new offense. In addition, DRC participants were more likely than Phase I participants to produce a positive drug test during the period. During the 12-month and 18-month post-completion periods, Phase I participants were more likely to obtain employment at 18-month follow-up. This was the only difference between the two groups for this period. References, tables, and figure