NCJ Number
195605
Date Published
January 2001
Length
17 pages
Annotation
This exploratory study first examined rearrest among clients in
two day reporting centers (DRCs) that served high-risk/high-need
probationers with substance abuse problems; and then models
compared DRC clients with two comparison groups of probationers.
Abstract
DRCs generally have the following three elements: offenders
report to the center regularly and frequently as a condition of
supervision; the number of contacts per week is greater than
clients would receive through normal community supervision; and
the programs provide or refer clients to services not available
to offenders outside the DRC. DRCs are used as intermediate
sanctions for offenders who would otherwise be confined, thereby
reducing prison or jail crowding. The current study included all
DRC clients who were admitted on or after July 1, 1991, and who
were discharged by April 30, 1994. Overall, 137 rural program
clients and 94 urban program clients had sufficient data for
inclusion in the analysis. The comparison groups consisted of
probationers in the two counties in the study who met the
eligibility requirements for the DRCs but who did not
participate in either program during the study period. Three
types of data were available for the study: personal
characteristics of the DRC clients and comparison group members
and prior record and rearrest data for DRC clients and comparison
group members. The outcome analyses examined the likelihood of at
least one arrest in the 12-month follow-up period. Findings showed
that overall, a smaller proportion of clients who completed the
program were rearrested compared to those who failed to complete
the program. In the rural program, 16.7 percent of the completers
were rearrested compared to 28.3 percent of noncompleters. This
difference was not statistically significant. In the urban
program, 18.9 percent of the completers were rearrested compared
with 37.7 percent of noncompleters; this was a significant
difference. Regarding the rearrest of DRC clients compared to
regular probationers, the only relationship that yielded a
significant difference in the likelihood of rearrest was the
comparison between DRC completers and the high-risk/high-need
comparison group in the rural program. Rearrest was related to
the commonly found personal characteristics of age, offense, and
prior record, rather than factors important to DRC program
participation. The study concludes that DRCs may provide a
viable correctional treatment option for moderately high-risk
offenders supervised in the community. It cautions that because
of the small sample sizes and exploratory nature of the study,
the results are suggestive and impressionistic rather than
definitive. 5 tables and 20 references
Date Published: January 1, 2001