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).
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
Date Published: August 1, 2011