Program Profile: New Jersey Community Resource Centers

This program operates through nonresidential multiservice centers that are designed to facilitate parolees’ successful reintegration back into the community by offering a combination of services and supervision. The program is rated Promising. Parolees in the treatment group showed statistically significant reductions in rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration, compared with parolees in the comparison group.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

Community Resource Centers (CRCs), also known as Day Reporting Centers, are nonresidential multiservice centers that facilitate parolees’ successful reintegration back into the community by offering a combination of services and supervision. They serve as community-based alternative sanctions for technical parole violators or as a condition of parole on release from prison. The New Jersey State Parole Board (NJSPB) uses CRCs as one approach to parole supervision.

Program Components

The centers are open 7 days a week and offer educational services; assistance in obtaining a GED; vocational and skills training, employment preparation and job placement; substance use education and programming; family counseling; and life skills training. Typical participation in the CRCs is 90 days.

There are several CRCs located throughout the State of New Jersey. Although the various centers follow the same model of parole supervision, the programmatic concentration and quality of services are not uniform from site to site. For example, the Essex County Day Reporting Center provides specialized reentry services for females. The center provides transitional housing and case management services, including employment assistance, parenting skills, and vocational training.

Program Theory

During the 1980s and 1990s, New Jersey, like many other States, saw a dramatic rise in its State prison population. At the same time, the number of parole revocations that resulted in a return to prison for parolees also greatly increased. This significant growth of admissions to prison, especially the admission of technical parole violators, placed enormous pressure on the State correctional budget. In 2001, the NJSPB responded to this issue by developing a new approach to manage parole violators, especially technical violators, emphasizing the use of intermediate sanctions and evidence-based practices.

CRCs can serve as intermediate sanctions for parole violators who have not complied with conditions of supervision or as stipulation of parole on release from prison. In either case, CRCs are designed to keep technical parole violators out of incarceration—thereby not contributing to the prison population—while providing appropriate treatment services that help parolees reintegrate back into the community and reduce the chances of recidivism or parole violation.

Study

Ostermann (2009) examined the ways in which two community programs in New Jersey affected the recidivism rates of parolees reentering the community. The two programs were Day Reporting Centers (DRCs), also known as Community Resource Centers (CRCs), and the Halfway Back (HWB) program. Three measurements for recidivism were used: rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration (except for parole violations). Rearrest was measured if study participants were arrested for a new crime after their release date. Reconviction was counted if participants were found to be guilty of one of their charges. Reincarceration was measured if participants served a custodial term in either prison or jail after their release. Time spent in the community was calculated by finding the difference in days between the study participant’s date of release from prison and the date of data collection (May 15, 2007). This allowed for a 3-year follow-up period. Data was gathered from multiple sources including the New Jersey State Parole Board, the New Jersey Department of Corrections, and the New Jersey State Police. Recidivism was determined by analyzing the study participant’s criminal case history and Interstate Identification Index.

The study sample included all individuals released from New Jersey Department of Corrections in 2004. A total sample of 714 participants made up four groups:

• Offenders who maxed out their prison sentence and did not receive any community supervision following release from prison (n = 200)
• Offenders who were paroled but did not participate in any community programs (n =1 98)
• Offenders who were paroled to a DRC on release (n = 135)
• Offenders who were paroled to a HWB program on release (n = 181)

This CrimeSolutions review focused on the comparison between those who were paroled to a CRC on release and those who maxed out their prison sentences and did not receive any community supervision following release from prison. Control variables used were age, gender, race, number of previous arrests, and type of crime for which they were incarcerated and then released in 2004. The sample's average age was 35 years old and was 93 percent male, 67 percent African American, 17 percent white, and 16 percent Hispanic. Fifty-three percent of study participants were incarcerated for drug related offenses, 26 percent for property offenses, and 21 percent for violent offenses. No significant differences were found among groups.

The study used Chi-square tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyses for variance to establish differences between the groups in relation to control variables. Sequential logistic regression was used to examine the impact of program membership on recidivism outcomes, including control variables. Further analyses were run by program types. Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were conducted to measure the differences in time to rearrest, with Cox-proportional hazards tests used to predict recidivism with control variables. The study did not conduct subgroup analysis.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Noncustodial Employment Programs for Individuals with Recent Criminal Records

This practice involves job training and career development for people with a recent criminal record in order to increase employment and reduce recidivism. These programs take place outside of the traditional custodial correctional setting, after they are released. The practice is rated No Effects in reducing criminal behavior for participants in noncustodial employment training programs compared with those who did not participate.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Adult Reentry Programs

This practice involves correctional programs that focus on the transition of individuals from prison into the community. Reentry programs involve treatment or services that have been initiated while the individual is in custody and a follow-up component after the individual is released. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Day Reporting Centers

This practice uses day reporting centers, which are nonresidential multiservice centers, to facilitate parolees’ reintegration back into the community through a combination of services and supervision. This practice is rated No Effects for reducing criminal recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?