Why Didn't They Work? Thoughts on the Application of New Jersey Day Reporting Centers

Abstract

Overthe past several decades, incarceration rates in theUnited States have increased by more than 200%, resulting in overcrowded state prison systems (Blumstein and Beck, 2005; Clear, 1994; Glaze, 2010; Irwin and Austin, 2012; Pew Center on the States, 2009). In the 1980s and 1990s, day reporting centers (DRCs) and other intermediate sanctions were developed to address problems resulting from the increased use of incarceration (e.g., overcrowding, increased correctional costs) by diverting offenders away from traditional confinement facilities while maintaining a higher level of control and accountability than standard probation (MacKenzie, 2006; Parent, Byrne, Tsarfaty, Valade, and Esselman, 1995; Tonry and Lynch, 1996). Some exceptions notwithstanding (see, e.g., Gendreau and Ross, 1987), these early intermediate sanctions were designed primarily to reduce offenders’ odds of recidivism through increased punishment, supervision, and control (MacKenzie, 2006). The evidence concerning the effects of these sanctions was not encouraging; recidivism and program failure rates were high, resulting in little to no impact on prison populations (Parent et al., 1995; Petersilia, 1998). Although incarceration rates in most states have leveled off (Glaze, 2010), the problems stemming from the increased use of incarceration in the 1980s and 1990s persist. In light of the evidence concerning the effects of control-oriented intermediate sanctions, some states have revamped their existing programs in an effort to reduce correctional costs and improve public safety by reducing participants’ odds of recidivism. Programs have added treatment services to address offenders’ needs pertaining to employment, drug use, and