Practice Profile: Day Reporting Centers

Evidence Rating for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types

Date: This profile was posted on December 10, 2019

Practice Goals/Target Population

Day reporting centers (DRCs), also known as community resource centers (CRCs) or attendance centers, are nonresidential multiservice centers designed to facilitate parolees’ reintegration back into the community by offering a combination of services and supervision. The three primary goals of DRCs are to 1) provide increased supervision for those who have been unable to follow the conditions of their supervision or require more supervision than is provided by traditional probation/parole conditions; 2) provide treatment, rehabilitative, or transitional programs such as job training or substance abuse treatment; and 3) reduce prison/jail overcrowding by focusing on those who would have otherwise been confined (Craddock 2004).

DRCs may be considered either “front end” or “back end.” Front-end DRCs use community-based programs to divert those persons from prison or jail. Back-end DRCs are either used as a form of early release, where they serve the remainder of their sentences in the community, or as a post-custodial supervision requirement for a jail or prison sentence (Wong et al. 2019).

Practice Components

DRC participants reside in noncustodial settings but are required to report to the center for supervision and program participation. Program attendance is mandatory; however, exceptions are made for participants who have school or employment-related commitments such as job interviews. For this reason, participants’ offsite activities are closely monitored, and many programs require participants to complete detailed itineraries of their daily schedules (Parent 1995).

DRCs typically use several supervision phases in which the amount of supervision gradually decreases over time. For example, participants may initially report daily to their onsite supervisor in the center, then report every other day, and then report only once or twice per week. On days when they are not required to report to an onsite supervisor, participants may be asked to check in with an offsite supervisor. While at the center, participants may be required to submit to drug testing and attend a variety of programming based on their individual needs. Programming may include education or vocational training, job placement services, alcohol and drug abuse education and treatment, individual or group counseling, and life-skills training (Boyle et al. 2013; Parent 1995).

Practice Theory

DRCs were originally conceptualized to help reduce the size of the prison population and alleviate the strain on correctional facilities faced with overcrowding. Those who serve custodial sentences often have difficulty reintegrating into the community upon release and frequently face barriers related to employment, education, housing, substance abuse treatment, and mental health care (Wodahl et al. 2015). These barriers can increase the likelihood of recidivism. Thus, DRCs are designed to help participants transition between incarceration and community living by providing access to services that address these barriers, which may lower their odds of recidivism.

Meta-Analysis Snapshot
	Literature Coverage Dates	Number of Studies	Number of Study Participants
Meta Analysis 1	1996-2017	9	19883

Meta Analysis 1

Wong and colleagues (2019) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effect of day reporting centers (DRCs) on criminal recidivism of adults who have been convicted of an offense. For studies to be included in the review, they had to meet the following criteria: 1) the program examined in the study had to explicitly identify as a DRC, as opposed to a community-based program with similar characteristics that did not identify as a DRC; 2) the primary focus of the program had to be on supervision and transitioning the individual into the community rather than on a specific treatment program (studies were limited to those that had the DRC as the primary intervention instead of a DRC in conjunction with another intervention, such as electronic monitoring); 3) the study used a randomized controlled trial or a quasi-experimental design with some form of matched comparison group; 4) the study had to score at least a “2” on the Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods (Sherman et al. 1998); and 5) the sample size of the treatment group had to include at least 20 participants, and the study had to quantitatively measure a criminogenic outcome that allowed for the calculation of an effect size.

The researchers identified relevant studies through a systematic review of the literature that spanned 18 electronic databases and the grey literature to identify unpublished works such as technical reports. Studies were excluded if the program targeted juveniles who have been convicted of an offense or focused on specific populations (e.g., persons on probation who have severe mental illness). Additionally, studies published prior to 1990 were excluded due to changes in program characteristics and populations in more recent years. The search resulted in a final sample of nine studies contributing 21 effect sizes, of which 12 were independent.

Nine studies conducted between 1996 and 2017 were included in the meta-analysis, which involved 19,883 participants. Seven of the studies used a quasi-experimental design with moderately to strongly matched comparison groups, and the remaining two were randomized controlled trials. Four were published in peer-reviewed journal articles, four were unpublished technical reports, and one was an unpublished master’s thesis. All studies were conducted in the United States. Five studies were characterized as back-end initiatives, meaning the DRC was used as a form of early release from detention or as a condition of the their parole. The remaining four studies were considered front-end initiatives, in which the DRC was used as community-based diversion from prison or as an alternative to jail. One study included only men in its sample, five studies included both male and female participants, and three studies did not report statistics on gender. Two studies reported samples that were mostly white or mixed ethnicities, three had a predominately minority sample, and the remaining four did not report on race or ethnicity. Studies included low-, medium-, and high-risk participants. Sample sizes ranged from 28 to 2,789 in the treatment group.

Measures of recidivism typically included arrest, conviction, incarceration, or a combination of all three of these outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated as odds ratios and then transformed to log odds ratios. The researchers conducted meta-analyses for the full set of 12 independent effect sizes, selecting conviction as the outcome when a study presented multiple outcomes. Analyses were also conducted on samples focusing on each of the arrest, conviction, and incarceration outcomes individually. Due to between-group heterogeneity, the researchers used random effects models for these analyses.

Date Created: July 17, 2024

Rating Process

Learn how this and other practices are rated

Practice Snapshot

Age: 18+

Gender: Male, Female

Race/Ethnicity: White, Other

Setting (Delivery): Other Community Setting

Practice Type: Alcohol and Drug Therapy/Treatment, Alternatives to Detention/Jail, Alternatives to Incarceration/Prison, Day/Evening Treatment, Probation/Parole Services, Vocational/Job Training, Wraparound/Case Management

Unit of Analysis: Persons

Practice Profile: Day Reporting Centers

Practice Summary

Practice Description

Practice Goals/Target Population

Practice Components

Practice Theory

Meta-Analysis Outcomes

Meta-Analysis Methodology

Cost

Other Information

Evidence-Base (Meta-Analyses Reviewed)

Additional References

Related Programs