The Use of Day Reporting as an Intermediate Sanction: A Study of Offender Targeting and Program Termination

• Author: LIZ MARIE MARCINIAK
• Published date: 01 June 1999
• Date: 01 June 1999
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0032885599079002005
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE PRISON
Marciniak / D JOURN
AY
AL
REPOR / June
TING 1999
AS INTERMEDIATE SANCTION
THE USE OF DAY REPORTING
AS AN INTERMEDIATE SANCTION:
A STUDY OF OFFENDER TARGETING
AND PROGRAM TERMINATION
LIZ MARIE MARCINIAK
University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg
The 1994 North Carolina Structured Sentencing Act led to the increased use of inter-
mediate sanctions such as day reporting centers. This study evaluates offender target-
ing and program termination among a sample of 204 offenders who were sentenced to
a day reporting center (DRC) in a southeastern North Carolina county. Despite sen-
tencing guidelines, judges sentenced some offenders to the day reporting center who
were ineligible. Issues of net-widening and judicial compliance are addressed. Results
show that the rate of program termination was high. Logistic regression analysis shows
some offender characteristics that affect the likelihood of termination from the DRC.
The day reporting center has become an increasingly popular community -
based sentencing option in recent years. It joins control-oriented community
punishments such as intensive supervision probation, house arrest, and elec-
tronic monitoring as an intermediate sanction. The goals of the day reporting
center include rehabilitating the offender through intensive programming, pro-
viding punishment in a cost-effective way, and ensuring community safety.
Structured sentencing in North Carolina links sentencing guidelines with
the development of intermediate sanctions such as day reporting (Tonry,
1997). North Carolina’s 1994 Structured Sentencing Act expanded the use of
intermediate sanctions, largely as a result of prison overcrowding. Intermedi-
ate sanctions are, by law, intended for offenders who otherwise would have
gone to prison. This study provides a unique opportunity to assess how day
reporting functions as an intermediate sanction.
A day reporting center is an intermediate sanction that requires the of-
fender to be supervised by a probation officer and be assigned to a “facility to
which offenders are required . . . to report on a daily or other regular basis at
specified times for a specified length of time to participate in activities such
as counseling, treatment, social skills training, or employment training”
(Clarke, 1994, p. 6).
THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 79 No. 2, June 1999 205-225
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
205

---

206
THE PRISON JOURNAL / June 1999
Proponents of these nonresidential centers boast that day reporting satis-
fies several justifications of punishment—incapacitation, retribution, and re-
habilitation. The retributive and incapacitative component entails a struc-
tured environment for the offender by requiring daily contact to the center,
curfews, and substance abuse screening. Day reporting centers may be differ-
entiated from other intermediate sanctions, however, by a marked concentra-
tion on rehabilitation. Staff assess the individual offender’s needs and offer
him or her various types of in-house treatment and referral programs, includ-
ing substance abuse treatment, education, vocational training, and psycho-
logical services.
Little empirical research has been done to assess predictors of program
completion or termination among offenders sentenced to day reporting cen-
ters in the United States. There are two main reasons for this. First, the day re-
porting center is still a relatively new sanction. Day reporting centers origi-
nated in Great Britain in the early 1970s, and by the mid-1980s they were
widely used to manage probationers. In the United States, however, the first
day reporting center did not open until 1986. Second, day reporting centers
vary greatly in terms of the target population, eligibility criteria, services of-
fered, monitoring procedures, and termination policies (Diggs & Pieper,
1994). The heterogeneity of program characteristic has hindered a clear un-
derstanding of the viability of the day reporting center as an effective inter-
mediate sanction.
This study examines the use of day reporting as an intermediate sanction
in a southeast North Carolina county. It addresses two main issues using a
sample of 204 offenders. First, it evaluates client targeting—who was origi-
nally intended to be sentenced to the day reporting center and who was actu-
ally sentenced. Issues of net-widening and judicial compliance are ad-
dressed. Second, using logistic regression, it identifies case characteristics
that affect the likelihood of termination from the program. Results are com-
pared with other evaluations, and policy implications are discussed.
BACKGROUND OF DAY REPORTING CENTERS
HISTORY
When day reporting centers emerged in Great Britain in the 1970s, proba-
tion officials had identified the need for a sanction that allowed the offender
to maintain family and social ties and secure or continue employment. Judges
used the original 4-day treatment centers as a condition of probation. More
than 80 day centers were implemented by the 1980s. Absent central

---

Marciniak / DAY REPORTING AS INTERMEDIATE SANCTION
207
planning, however, the programs at these centers were quite diverse with re-
spect to types of cases, administration, operation, caseload, and program
content (Parent, 1990).
Day treatment in the United States began in response to prison crowding
and was strongly influenced by British day centers. Day reporting centers
were envisioned to offer enhanced supervision and provide a wide range of
treatment services to the offender. The model of day reporting also has ante-
cedents in programs for deinstitutionalized mental patients and juvenile of-
fenders (Parent, 1990).
The first site in Hampden County, Massachusetts, which opened in 1986,
was used as an early release option for sentenced inmates but later accepted
pretrial detainees (Larivee, 1990). Like the British system, there is extreme
diversity in day reporting centers operating across the country in terms of
type of offender, number of clients served at a center, and length of time to be
spent at the center (Parent, 1990).
GOALS
Two central goals of intermediate sanctions in general are diversion and
cost-effectiveness. Do intermediate sanctions divert offenders from prison?
Are intermediate sanctions handed down to offenders who are otherwise
prison bound, or are they given to offenders who would otherwise have re-
ceived a sentence of regular probation? The latter scenario, net-widening, is a
common critique of community-based corrections. In this case, intermediate
sanctions are not serving as an alternative to incarceration, but are instead
widening the net of social control over offenders who are not targeted for in-
termediate sanctions. Tonry’s (1990) review of evaluations of intensive su-
pervision programs shows clear evidence of net-widening.
The issue of high revocation rates of offenders under surveillance oriented
programs, such as intensive supervision probation, also undermines the goal
of cost-effectiveness. Because such programs require many contacts with
probation officers, they are more at-risk than those offenders sentenced to
regular probation. When revoked, the offender typically goes to prison.
Based on the reality of net-widening and high revocation rates, Tonry (1990)
concludes that most intermediate sanctions are not cost-effective.
MECHANISMS TO ACHIEVE TREATMENT COMPLIANCE
Some suggest that the mechanism by which to achieve success in a pro-
gram lies in the establishment of informal social controls. A body of litera-
ture (Brasswell, 1989; Byrne, 1990) suggests that the establishment of

---

208
THE PRISON JOURNAL / June 1999
informal social controls may be more effective in deterring future offending
than simply increasing the number of surveillance contacts. Byrne (1990)
suggests that “IPS [Intensive Probation Supervision] programs may be im-
portant not for the surveillance and control afforded offenders but for the re-
lationships that develop as a result of closer contact” (p. 32).
A close bond with a probation officer or case manager may reduce recidi-
vism because the offender does not want to disappoint the case manager who
motivates him or her to achieve. His or her attitudes and behavior change to
become more prosocial. The structure of most day reporting centers facili-
tates the development of informal social controls to potentially increase
treatment compliance.
Petersilia and Turner’s (1990) work suggests that probation programs that
offer offender treatment as well as intensive surveillance can reduce recidi-
vism by about 15%, compared to intensive surveillance probation programs
that offer no special offender treatment. In reviewing evaluations of intensive
supervision probation (ISP) programs in general, Turner, Petersilia, and
Deschenes (1992) suggest that “These cumulative results lend serious doubt
to the claim that increased supervision, in and of itself, will not reduce recidi-
vism, decrease prison crowding, or save public funds.” Thus, there is consid-
erable reason to believe that the focus on counseling offered by day reporting
centers may enhance treatment compliance.
CORRELATES OF SUCCESS
Day reporting is being used as an intermediate sanction in North Carolina
as well as other jurisdictions. It is therefore important to see how likelihood
of termination varies by different case characteristics. This has obvious pol-
icy implications for targeting clients for day reporting.
This study examines the link between offender characteristics, offense
type, living situation, history of substance abuse, and unsuccessful...