If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. Justic~ Programs Institute of Ju..'itice (I '0 o Q N Institute of Justice ',tio'llal. .. "'5"' " , () ;) Ot oCD ,) LO Day LO ;Reporting \ I I. f. Centers JS&ftW ...... , About the National Institute of Justice The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the The research and development program that resulted in Office of Justice Programs, is the research and development the creation of police body armor that has meant the agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ was estab­ difference between life and death to hundreds of police lished to prevent and reduce crime and to improve the officers. criminal justice system. Specific mandates established by Congress in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act Pioneering scientific advances such as the research and of 1968, as amended, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 development of DNA analysis to positively identify direct the National Institute of Justice to: suspects and eliminate the innocent from suspicion. Sponsor special projects, and research and develop­ The evaluation of innovative justice programs to deter­ mem programs that will improve and strengthen the mine what works, including drug enforcement, commu­ criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime. nity policing, community anti-drug initiatives, prosecu­ tion of complex drug cases, drug testing throughout the Conduct national demonstration projects that employ criminal justice system, and user accountability pro­ innovative orpromising approaches for improving crimi­ grams. nal justice. Creation of a corrections information-sharing system Develop Ilew'teclmologies to fight crime and improve that enables State and local officials to exchange more criminal justice. efficient and cost-effective concepts and techniques for planning, financing, and constructing n(:w prisons and Evaluate the effectiveness ofcriminnljustice programs jails. and identify programs that promise to be successful if continued or repeated. Operation of the world's largest criminal justice infor­ mation clearinghouse, a resource used by State and local Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, officials across the Nation and by criminal justice agen­ and local go"ernment& as well as by private organiza­ cies in foreign countries. tions to improve criminal justice. Carry out research on criminal behavior. The Institute Director, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, establishes the Institute's objec­ Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduc­ tives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Pro­ tion of crime and delinquency. grams, the Department of Justice, and the needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute acti vely solicits the views The National Institute of Justice has a long history of of criminaI justice professionals to identify their mostcritical accomplishments, including the following: problems. Dedicated to the priorities of Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies, research and development at Basic reseuich on career criminals that led to develop­ the National Institute of Justice continues to search for ment of special police and prosecutor units to deal with answers to what works and why in the Nation's war on drugs repeat offenders. and crime. Research that confirmed the link between drugs and crime. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute ofJustice Day Reporting Centers Volume 1 by Dale Parent Jim Byrne Vered Tsarfaty . Laura Valade Julie Esselman September 1995 Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice is a publication series ofthe National Institute ofJustice. Each report presents the program options and management issues in a topic, area, based on a review of research and evaluation findings, operational experience, and expert opinion on the subject. The intent is to provide information to make informed choices in planning, implementing, and improving programs and practice in criminal justice. -=- National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis Director Marilyn Moses Cheryl Crawford Program Monitors Advisory Panel Larance Coleman Arthur Lurigio, Ph.D. Director Director of Research Harris County Adult Probation Department Cook County Adult Probation Department 49 San Jacinto Street 2690 South California Houston, TX 77002 Chicago, IL 60608 Elizabeth Curtin Director of Community Corrections Crime and Justice Foundation 95 Berkeley Street Boston, MA 02116 Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice by AbtAssociates Inc., under contract #OJP-94~C-007. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, The National Institute of Justice is a component ofthe Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Offic.e of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. NCJ 155060 - -----~-.~-----.------------~ Forewoy:d In response to record numbers of convicted offenders and ate sanctiolls, such as int.ensive supervision programs (mp's), widespread prison crowding, American correctional offi­ another recent innovation, which has focused primari'\y on cials in recent years have expanded the range ofintel.'mediate surveiHance ulone. sanctions that fall between traditional probation and com­ plete incarceration. House arrest, intensive supervision, This fitudy documents key feature:> of existing DRC's and curfew, and other intermedialte sanctions fulfill many pur­ describe,f, important trends in their dewelopment. For \~x­ poses. They provide graduatr~d punishments that may be ample, while most of the first DRe's in the United Stm\es more appropriate than either probation or prison for some were established in the mid-1980's as private operations offenses, and they maintain a higher level of offender (under contracts with executive agendes), more recent control and accountability than does standard probation or programs typically are operated by local governments (of­ parole supervision. In addit.iion, intermediate sanctions may ten by judicial districts). Wherea~ 01der programs mostly provide enhanced levels Cif treatment lor services for prob­ admifL sentenced inmates released I!ariy from prison or jail, lems common among criminal offenders, such as drug newer programs primarily targe( offenders from pretrial abuse, low educational hWIIJls, and unemployment. Fin.ally, confinement or probation. And, .:.:ontrary to the original when used in lieu of confinement, inte!rmediate sanctions programs' distinction of emphasizing supervision and ser­ may reduce prison or j'ail populations and <lIssociated COS.IS. vic(!s equally, newer DRC's h:m.d to give more emphasis to sllperv.ision. Clearly, day reporting is an intermediate sanc­ Day reporting center~ (DRC's) represent a promising new tion in a state of evolution. Yet its rapid growth and growing intermediate sanction that is being wideJIy implem€',nted in implementation by public ·eon-ectional agencies suggest that the United States. A 1990 study by the National I7.l.stitufie of this innovative concept has moved quickly in,to the main­ Justice found only 13 DF:C's in the United States, whf~reas sf;ream of American cotTectionai practice. the present survey found. at least 114, hi 22 states. DRe's uniquely emphasi.ze both strict sUfveilJ.ance and high lievels Jeremy Travis of treatment and other services to offenders. Thh; dual Director emphasis distinguishes day reporting from other intermedi- National Institute of Justice 155060 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute 01 Jus.tice This document has been repmduced exactly as received from the person or organization originatirg it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are thcse of the alJthors and do not necessarily represent the official position or poliCies of tl19 National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this e I 1Ili$llf'material has been gr~i1.c Dorna:i.n/QJP/NIJ U. s. Department '-o-"':f::--::J:-"-us-'ti:-';-'c'-e--- to the National Crimint1:1 Justice Fleference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NGJRS system requires permission of the ~owner. Foreword III Acknowledgements Abt Associates Inc. is especially indebted to several persons the draft report. Special thanks are also due to State and local whose contributions greatly improved this project and mad!' officials who hosted visits to their day reporting programs, our work much easier. including: The National InstituteofJustice (NIJ) convened an advisory Bill Carbone, Director board consisting of: James Greene, Technical Assistance and Training Consultant Larance Coleman Office of Alternative Sanctions Director Connecticut Judicial Department Harris County Community Supervision Hartford, Connecticut and Correction Department Houston, Texas Larance Coleman, Director Harris County Community Supervision Elizabeth Curtin and Corrections Department Director of Community Corrections Houston, Texas Crime and Justice Foundation Boston, Massachusetts Norm Helber, Chief Probation Officer Maricopa County Adult Probation Department Arthur Lurigio, Ph.D. Phoenix, Arizona Director of Research Adult Probation Department Kevin Warwick, Director Cook County (Chicago), minois Hampden County Day Reporting Center Springfield, Massachusetts Advisors met to identify issues that needed to be addressed