Examining Time to Completion Among Participants in Day Reporting Centers

Background and Purpose: Day Reporting Centers (DRCs) are a non-residential alternative to incarceration in the United States, intended to reduce recidivism and lower incarceration rates among participants with a history of substance use through intensive community supervision. DRCs programming typically consists of three phases. The first phase is approximately four to eight weeks of intensive programing directed to substance use prevention, conflict management and moral reasoning. While there is existing research on overall DRC effectiveness, there remains a gap in our knowledge concerning factors associated with completing the first, and arguably most intensive phase of DRC programming.

Methods: The data in this study were from an administrative database provided by the State Department of Corrections. The sample (N=444) included individuals who were attending DRCs over a 12-mointh window and completed phase 1 of DRC programming. Data included the number of days for phase 1 program completion. Mental health needs, substance use needs, and a motivation to change were assessed through three scales based on Bonta and Andrews’ (2007) risk/needs/responsivity (RNR) model. Also measured were a count of new felony charges while in phase 1, a count of positive drug tests while in phase 1, a dichotomous measure of probation revocation, a dichotomous measure of drug-related criminal charges and prior convictions before attending a DRC and whether the participant was a program graduate. Data also included sociodemographic measures. This study was reviewed and approved by the lead author’s university IRB.

Results: Participants were mostly male (69.5%), White non-Hispanic (68.2%), with high substance use needs, high motivation to change, and moderate mental health needs. The average number of positive drug tests was 34.2 and about 17% of participants were program graduates. A multivariate negative binomial regression model examining correlates of days to phase 1 completion showed that participants with higher rates of mental health needs experienced risk for significantly increased time to complete phase 1 (IRR = 1.06, p < .05), and individuals who experienced a higher number of positive drug tests experienced risk for significantly increased time to complete phase 1 (IRR = 1.01, p < .05). Additionally, program graduates experienced risk for significantly increased time to complete phase 1 (IRR = 1.35, p < .05).

Conclusions and Implications: Mental health needs may pose delays for program completion among persons in community supervision. However, results also suggest that simply increasing the speed at which persons complete the initial phase of programming may have negative impacts for eventual program completion. Social workers in criminal justice settings may benefit from this work as it highlights the increased needs that persons in the criminal justice system with mental health problems may have, and that these increased needs may cause a delay in completion of community supervision programming. Additional research in this area, including more specific measurements of mental health needs, and identification of additional factors that contribute to the duration of completing supervision programming are needed in order to provide the most humane and needed services to persons involved in the criminal justice system.