Society for Social Work and Research

Sixteenth Annual Conference Research That Makes A Difference: Advancing Practice and Shaping Public Policy
11-15 January 2012 I Grand Hyatt Washington I Washington, DC

17389 An Examination of Recidivism of Day Reporting Center Pilot Project for Emerging Adult Offenders

Friday, January 13, 2012: 3:30 PM
Penn Quarter B (Grand Hyatt Washington)
* noted as presenting author
Sei-Young Lee, PhD, Evaluation Coordinator, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
Purpose: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in recent years seeks solutions to reduce prison overcrowding and to improve the health care of inmates in the state prison system. The Day Reporting Center (DRC) Pilot Project was to test service models at the local county level for reducing recidivism. Specifically, the pilot project required services to be provided emerging adult (18-25) probationers living in large urban communities in known “gang hot spots”. A Day Reporting Center is defined as an intermediate sanction that requires the offender to be supervised by a probation officer. Probationers are required to report to a facility on daily or other regular schedules. Typical activities include counseling, treatment, skills training, and job preparation. Unlike Work Furlough, participants do not stay overnight and are allowed to leave when their activities for the day have been completed. The study focuses on the evaluation of DRC across the 6-, 12-, and 18-months follow-up periods.

Method: The program consisted of three phases: 1) motivation and treatment planning, 2) case management and reward strategies, and 3) support networks and re-entry Skills. Mental health and substance abuse treatments were provided on site and given to participants assessed as needing these services. A total of 230 participants in the DRC treatment group were examined. The comparison group subjects were identified utilizing an archival computer search of field supervised adult probationers with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. From the archival list generated, a total of 230 participants were matched and selected because most original comparison subjects which were randomly assigned were found to be incomparable.

Results: Recidivism for the full DRC treatment group were similar to those for the Comparison Group. However, upon controlling for significant baseline differences between the two groups on each of five criminogenic factors (employment status, gang membership, age at first arrest, number of prior convictions, and Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) total scores), the full DRC treatment group was found to have significantly fewer convictions and county jail bookings overall, as well as significantly fewer arrests during the first six-month follow-up period. With respect to those who successfully completed the DRC treatment program, the average number of re-arrests, convictions and jail bookings was significantly lower for this group than for the comparison group, and the percent of DRC completers sent to prison was also significantly lower in both the 6 and 12 month follow-up periods. Logistic regression revealed the DRC treatment effect (beta=.13, p<.001). Implications: These findings support the importance of interventions that target the high risk emerging adult offenders of reducing recidivism. This was also an experiment which resulted in probation officers performing in ways they had never experienced in a regular field office. They were trained in EBP and CBT assessments and interventions and conducted a case planning in a multidisciplinary treatment environment in order to enhance implementation science.

<< Previous Abstract | Next Abstract