Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:57 am
Time: 11:57 am
Results for day reporting centers
6 results foundAuthor: Rhyne, Charlene Title: Multnomah County Day Reporting Center Evaluation Summary: In January 1994 Multnomah County Department of Community Justice celebrated the opening of the Day Reporting Center (DRC). The DRC is a highly structured programming opportunity for offenders that can be used as an alternative to incarceration. DRC staff work closely with Parole/Probation Officers to address public safety concerns by addressing high risk/high need behaviors such as drug abuse, impulsivity, anti-social thinking, lack of employment and education, mental health concerns and lack of positive peer supports. In 2005 the Day Reporting Center was evaluated by this author. Findings included evidence of DRC's impact on recidivism with completers having a statistically significant 39% decrease in arrests pre- and post-DRC as compared to a 19% increase in arrests for non-completers. This current evaluation was conducted as a part of DCJ continuous quality improvement efforts. This form of monitoring allows course corrections to be made that are data and outcome driven. This evaluation utilized a sample of 642 offender referral entries to the Day Reporting Center in fiscal year 2008. These referral outcomes will be compared to 162 offenders who were referred to the DRC and no-showed. No-show samples are often used as comparison groups given they are identical in characteristics of the participants yet had no treatment (DRC) experience. Findings: Half of the episodes with engaged offenders resulted in 50% successful completion and 50% unsuccessful completion. The successful completion rate is up 5% from the 2005 study. Statistically significant reductions in pre- and post-DRC arrests were seen across all three groups: Successful -- 60% reduction --Unsuccessful -- 31% reduction - No show -- 27% reduction - Statistically significant percent of each group with post-arrests were in the expected direction: - Successful -- 12.1% of group had at least one arrest post-DRC exit - Unsuccessful -- 25.2% of group had at least one arrest post-DRC exit - No show - 38.9% of group had at least one arrest post-DRC exit - On average, the time to failure for the successful group was observed to be 50 days greater than the no show group. - Statistically significant differences were found between the DRC dosage of the successful group as compared to the unsuccessful group. Details: Portland, OR: Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed August 2, 2011 at: http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/dcj/documents/drc_final_document.doc Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/dcj/documents/drc_final_document.doc Shelf Number: 122256 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsDay Reporting CentersIntensive ProbationParoleRehabilitation |
Author: Boyle, Douglas J. Title: Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of an Intensive Community Corrections Program – Day Reporting Centers – For Parolees Summary: The present study is an experimental evaluation of the relative effectiveness of an intensive community corrections program, often referred to as a Day Reporting Center (DRC), versus an intensive supervision parole condition (Phase I). DRC is a program that brings groups of parolees together from throughout a municipality or larger geographic area for supervision, services, and programming, and requires them to spend significant amounts of time together on a daily basis. Alternatively, Phase I is an individual-based intensive supervision with referral to services and with additional conditions imposed. Participants were randomly assigned to either DRC (n = 198) or Phase I (n = 204), and data were collected for 18 months post 90 day study period. Overall, 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 month period immediately following study participation, DRC participants were more likely to be re-convicted of a new offense. Furthermore, DRC participants were more likely than Phase I participants to produce a positive drug test during this period. Over the 12 and 18 month post completion periods, there was only one difference between the study groups, with Phase I participants more likely to obtain employment at 18 month follow-up. Results of the current investigation showed that DRCs did not produce better outcomes than the control group, and during some time periods treatment effects were significantly worse. The pattern of outcomes favoring Phase I supervision is even more noteworthy given the relative costs of the two programs, since Phase I is significantly less expensive than DRC programming. These findings raise important policy and fiscal concerns regarding the rationale for using the DRC model to supervise medium- and high-risk parolees. However, this should not be construed as saying that individual supervision alone is sufficient, since Phase I parolees were assigned additional conditions at the discretion of their parole officers which could include outpatient drug treatment, mental health treatment, educational training and others. The implications of the present research for policy and practice are significant. The overall finding is that medium- and high-risk parolees can be managed as effectively in the community at far less cost using a Phase-based individual system. Details: Newark, NJ: Violence Institute of New Jersey at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 2011. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236080.pdf Shelf Number: 123067 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsDay Reporting CentersParoleParolees |
Author: Spencer, Sonya Title: Day Reporting Centres: A Service Delivery Model Summary: The following report documents the findings of a review of Day Reporting Centres (DRCs) currently operating in Canada, how they are similar or differ from those that research has proven to be effective, and recommendations for further consideration. For the purpose of this report all Day Reporting Centres included in this review are providing services to federal offenders on conditional or legislated release in the community. All programs are delivered by the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) under contract with Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). In gathering information for this report, input was solicited from the following groups; NGOs CSC Parole Board of Canada Police Community Members/Volunteers International Experts Community Stakeholders Roundtable discussions were held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Calgary, Alberta, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Toronto, Ontario, Montreal, Quebec and Moncton, New Brunswick between January 10, 2011 and January 27, 2011. In total 129 people participated and contributed to the findings within this report. Based on a literature review, the consultation process and the service delivery experience of the author, the following observations we noted in relation to Canadian CDRCs; There are a total of 21 DRCs currently operating, in various stages of implementation, in 5 Provinces. In the remaining Provinces and Territories programs are delivering similar services, however for the purposes of this report they were not included. It should be noted that these programs may have promising practices that could be explored in a broader review of community based programming for offenders. When reviewing the operating practices of the DRCs it became apparent that although all shared the same name and overarching goal of the safe reintegration of offenders, there were few similarities in the models of service delivery, funding models, program utilization or data collection. This appears consistent with the models in both the UK and in the United States. Generally DRCs seem to be more of an accepted concept rather than a model for direct replication. This report attempts to provide a guide for further implementation of DRCs based on the principles of effective correctional interventions. During roundtable discussions it was unanimous that DRCs could be an effective tool within the continuum of community correctional interventions. It was agreed that principles of practice would support current and future program implementation yet there must be the flexibility within the model to allow for customization based on unique demographics and specialized populations. Details: Toronto: St. Leonard’s Society of Toronto, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2013 at: http://www.stleonardstoronto.com/pdf/Day%20Reporting%20Centres.A%20Service%20Delivery%20Model.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://www.stleonardstoronto.com/pdf/Day%20Reporting%20Centres.A%20Service%20Delivery%20Model.pdf Shelf Number: 128343 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Canada)Conditional ReleaseDay Reporting Centers |
Author: Hobbs, Anne Title: Evaluation fo the Lancaster County Alternatives to Juvenile Detention Summary: In June 2009, the Juvenile Justice Institute (JJI) was contracted to evaluate four of Lancaster County's Juvenile Justice Programs: Cedars Day Reporting Center, Cedars Evening Reporting Center, Project HIRE, and Cedars Juvenile Diversion. Each of these was identified as a detention alternative. The Institute was further charged with addressing three research questions: - Are detention alternatives keeping youth out of detention and; thereby, saving taxpayers money? - Are Lancaster County's detention alternative programs using "evidence based models" and, if so, have they been implemented with fidelity? - Are there other evidence-based programs that research has shown to be effective with this population? In addition, Lancaster County hoped to examine whether youth who complete these programs committed new legal offenses and ended up more deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system. At the time of this report, the Lancaster County juvenile justice coordinator did not have access to the Nebraska Criminal Justice Information System (NCJIS) to examine recidivism. Access alone does not answer the question of recidivism with accuracy. If Lancaster County plans to utilize recidivism as a long term measure, they must uniformly define the terminology and grant the coordinator access. Although some definitions of recidivism are proposed in this report from across the nation, determining how stable a youth is offers information potentially more useful that simple recidivism. Results from Lancaster County's use of the Youth Stability Reporting Instrument are included; these offer us new ways to examine a juvenile's potential for re-offending. One of the key findings and primary obstacles to this evaluation was the lack of coordinated data systems. This obstacle echoes a finding of the 2007 evaluation of the Juvenile Justice System in Lancaster County. In that report, the Institute noted that gaps exist in the coordination and documentation of juvenile justice interventions utilized in serving young offenders. Although Lancaster County made significant progress in many of the priorities identified in the prior report, the lack of coordinated and consistent data collection continues to be a problem. The gap in documentation made it impossible to provide an in-depth assessment of cost savings realized through the use of detention alternatives. Despite concerns regarding the lack of data, our findings demonstrate that Lancaster County Detention Alternative Programs are using many of the evidence-based practices defined by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). These programs appear to be effective in preventing youth from going deeper into the juvenile justice system. Details: Omaha, NE: Juvenile Justice Institute, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: http://www.unomaha.edu/juvenilejustice/pdf/Eval_of_Lan_Cty_Alternatives_to_Detention.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.unomaha.edu/juvenilejustice/pdf/Eval_of_Lan_Cty_Alternatives_to_Detention.pdf Shelf Number: 132367 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDay Reporting CentersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (Nebraska) |
Author: Spence, Douglas H. Title: Recidivism by Direct Sentence Clients Released from Day Report Centers in 2011: Predictors and Patterns over Time Summary: This study investigates the factors that predict the likelihood that DRC clients will be arrested, booked into jail, or incarcerated within 2 years of release. It also examines the timing of recidivism events during the period after release. The strong relationship between successful program completion, risk scores, and recidivism provides evidence of the impact of DRC programming and the predictive validity of the LS/CMI risk assessment tool. Analysis of LS/CMI subcomponent scores reveals important areas of criminogenic need for the DRC client population in WV, and suggest means for further improving the quality of service delivery in DRCs. Findings related to the timing of recidivism point to additional opportunities for reducing recidivism rates through the use of targeted post-release supervision strategies. Implications for quality assurance, effective treatment dosage, and adherence to evidence-based practices are also discussed. Details: Charleston, WV: Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Office of Research and Strategic Planning, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2016 at: http://jrsa.org/sac-spotlight/wv-recidivism/wv-drc-recidivism.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://jrsa.org/sac-spotlight/wv-recidivism/wv-drc-recidivism.pdf Shelf Number: 137750 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationsDay ReportingDay Reporting CentersOffender Risk AssessmentPredictionRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Spence, Douglas H. Title: The Predictive Utility of Risk and Needs Assessment Summary: Risk and needs assessment plays a crucial role in determining the services offenders receive while in correctional custody and their level of supervision after release. According to the principles of effective correctional intervention, clients assessed as having a higher risk of recidivism should receive both a greater treatment dosage and a higher level of case supervision. This strategy of providing more services to higher risk individuals is frequently described as adhering to the "risk principle" (Andrews and Dowden, 2006). In order to adhere to the risk principle, however, correctional programs must first ensure that they are accurately assessing offenders' risk and needs. The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), and its predecessor the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), are two of the most prominent and widely-used tools for assessing offenders. Both have been subjected to extensive empirical research and have been shown to accurately predict the likelihood of recidivism for a variety of offender populations (Vose, Cullen and Smith, 2008). The LS/CMI is currently used by all correctional agencies in West Virginia to assess risk for recidivism. The tool is completed through a process that involves an offender interview combined with the use of official records. The collective information is used to calculate risk scores that indicate an overall risk for recidivism as well as identify specific criminogenic needs (i.e., dynamic risk factors shown to be empirically related to recidivism). These factors include: education/employment, family/marital relationships, substance abuse, procriminal attitudes, antisocial peers, leisure/recreation activities, antisocial personality, and past criminal behavior. LS/CMI scores are utilized to make a variety of decisions including level of supervision and services to be provided to protect public safety. Several recent and forthcoming studies conducted by researchers from the Office of Research and Strategic Planning (ORSP) assess the effectiveness of the LS/CMI for predicting recidivism by offenders in WV. These studies investigate the statistical relationships between various offender characteristics (including LS/CMI scores) and the likelihood of committing a new offenses during a 24 month follow-up period. Details: Charleston, WV: Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Office of Research and Strategic Planning, 2015. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief; Evidence-Based Practice Series, No. 1: Accessed February 3, 2016 at: http://www.djcs.wv.gov/ORSP/SAC/Documents/JCEBP%20Research%20Brief%201_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.djcs.wv.gov/ORSP/SAC/Documents/JCEBP%20Research%20Brief%201_final.pdf Shelf Number: 137753 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationsDay ReportingDay Reporting CentersOffender Risk AssessmentPredictionRecidivismRisk Assessment |