Day Reporting Centers and Recidivism: The Role of Social Support

• Published date: 01 October 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231187414
• Author: Sharon S. Oselin,Matthew C. Mahutga,Humberto Flores
• Date: 01 October 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 10, October 2023, 1526 –1546.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231187414

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1526

DAY REPORTING CENTERS AND RECIDIVISM

The Role of Social Support

SHARON S. OSELIN

MATTHEW C. MAHUTGA

University of California, Riverside

HUMBERTO FLORES

University of California, Santa Barbara

Day reporting centers (DRCs) are increasingly popular alternative to traditional forms of supervision. Yet, studies that

describe a fairly common set of programs and services among DRCs produce conflicting results regarding their efficacy,

suggesting that as yet unobserved characteristics of DRCs might explain their varying efficacy. This article relies on a mixed-

methods analysis of DRCs. Using quasi-experimental regression techniques and a conservative control group to estimate the

average treatment effect of DRC participation, we analyze recidivism outcomes (arrests and convictions) after a 2-year fol-

low-up period. We then draw on qualitative interview data to reveal which aspects of the DRC programs’ clients identify as

most important for successful re-entry. Our analysis suggests that DRCs reduce recidivism for participants by 10.8 (convic-

tions) to 12.8 (arrests) percentage points. Our interview data suggest that high levels of social support from justice-involved

DRC staff amplify the effects of programming to help explain this outcome.

Keywords: re-entry; probation; community supervision; program evaluation; offender treatment; social support

Reversing the practice of mass incarceration has become a priority within criminal justice

policy reform in a number of U.S. states, including California and New York. This shift

is executed through the implementation of alternative supervision or community corrections

programming. Concurrently, scholars have examined how varied prisoner re-entry programs

effect recidivism and overall reintegration success (see, Bender et al., 2016; Jonson & Cullen,

2015; Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). One of these programs is DRCs, which aim to provide

services, resources, and skills linked to criminogenic needs for the formerly incarcerated

who are still under supervision. DRCs have emerged within multiple states, yet Huebner

(2013) notes there remains “scant literature on the efficacy of DRC programming” (p.113).

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This evaluation was funded by the Riverside County Probation Department.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sharon S. Oselin, School of Public Policy,

University of California, Riverside, INTS 4133, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92521; e-mail: soselin@

ucr.edu.

1187414CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231187414Criminal Justice and BehaviorOselin et al. / Day Reporting Centers and Recidivism

research-article2023

Oselin et al. / DAY REPORTING CENTERS AND RECIDIVISM 1527

Despite strong a priori reasons to expect that DRCs will lessen recidivism rates, research

on these programs have engendered decidedly mixed conclusions about their efficacy (for

review, see Wong et al., 2019). In fact, studies that employ random assignment or quasi-

experimental designs find that DRCs can reduce, increase, or have no effect on recidivism,

even though most assess client risks and address their criminogenic needs via a fairly com-

mon set of services and programming (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). It remains unclear why

some are effective while others are not. Even in cases with a shown DRC effect on recidi-

vism, these programs are typically treated as something of a black box (Duwe, 2013), in

part because scholars make minimal effort to understand how programming is delivered and

by whom, which could reveal possible mechanisms that contribute to specific outcomes.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Plata (2011) forced California’s hand to

immediately address the state’s overcrowded prisons. Ordered to reduce the population of

state prisons by 25% within 2 years, the legislature passed the Public Safety Realignment

Act (AB 109) and Criminal Justice Realignment (AB 117), which vested California’s 58

counties with unprecedented responsibility for the physical custody and post-custodial

monitoring of people with non-violent, non-serious, and non-sexual offenses. While each

county received funding from the state, few stipulations were attached to these monies,

which in turn granted them substantial discretion in developing their own custodial and

post-custodial strategies. Throughout various counties, DRCs emerged as an alternative to

traditional supervision based upon the belief that their model of integrated service delivery

should, conceptually, aid in re-entry and reduce recidivism while also addressing prison and

jail overcrowding.

Our study of three Riverside County’s DRCs involves a mixed-methods analysis to

examine their effectiveness and identify the possible mechanisms at play (Riverside County

Department of Mental Health, n.d.). Our deductive quantitative analysis focuses on the

recidivism outcomes of arrests and convictions within a 2-year follow-up period using

logistic and doubly-robust inverse probability weighting regression techniques. We also

employ a control group of the subset of individuals on probation who could have completed

the DRC but did not because they were employed or enrolled in alternative programming.

We then turn to our qualitative interview data to inductively explore possible mechanisms

that cultivate this outcome.

DO DAY REPORTING CENTERS REDUCE RECIDIVISM?

In response to ballooning prison and jail populations various community-based pro-

grams—including DRCs—emerged as an alternative to bridge custodial sentences and

unsupervised release. Duwe (2013) describes DRCs as: “ . . . similar to prisoner reentry

programs insofar as they are designed to reduce recidivism by increasing offender access to

relevant programming” (p. 145). These physical sites are designed to facilitate successful

re-entry through a “one-stop” model that offers a range of services that address criminologi-

cal needs, including anger management, educational and vocational training, cognitive

therapy, job placement services, drug addiction classes, connections to various social ser-

vices, general life-skills training, and more. DRCs typically provide community-based pro-

gramming to people released from incarceration.

Extant research on DRCs reveals mixed conclusions regarding efficacy. Though certain

evaluations champion DRCs as an effective alternative to traditional custodial supervision