What Really Happens in Vegas?: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluation of Nevada's First Day Reporting Center

• Author: Linsey A. Belisle,Matthew P. West,William H. Sousa
• DOI: 10.1177/00328855221095532
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Date: 01 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

What Really Happens

in Vegas?: Results

of a Randomized

Controlled Trial

Evaluation of Nevada’s

First Day Reporting

Center

Linsey A. Belisle

1

, Matthew P. West

2

,

and William H. Sousa

3

Abstract

The current study is one of few to utilize a randomized controlled trial

design to evaluate the effects of a Day Reporting Center (DRC).

Individuals on community supervision were randomly assigned to the DRC

group or the control group. Path models examined the direct and indirect

effects of DRC participation on social outcomes, revocations, and violations.

Findings suggest that DRCs might effectively achieve their goals, at least in

the short term and for some types of individuals. While these f‌indings sug-

gest that DRCs can be effective, more research is needed before def‌initive

policy implications can be made.

Keywords

day reporting centers, community corrections, community supervision,

intermediate sanctions, probation and parole

1

University of Houston Downtown, Houston, TX, USA

2

Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USA

3

University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA

Corresponding Author:

Linsey A. Belisle, University of Houston Downtown Department of Criminal Justice and Social

Work, College of Public Service, One Main St., Suite C340, Houston, TX 77002, USA.

Email: Belislel@uhd.edu

The Prison Journal

2022, Vol. 102(3) 304–324

© 2022 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00328855221095532

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Introduction

The rates at which people oscillate between incarceration and community

supervision in the United States are striking. Just under half of all U.S.

state prison admissions are individuals on parole or probation who return

due to new offenses or technical violations (Council of State Governments

Justice Center, 2019). This cycle of re-incarceration comes at a high cost to

taxpayers, ~ $28,000 per incarcerated individual per year (Kyckelhan,

2012; Mai & Subramanian, 2017). With over two million adults incarcerated

nationally (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020), the annual costs are in the billions. Due

to high recidivism rates and the high costs of incarceration, there is an increas-

ing need for safe and effective alternatives to incarceration. Day Reporting

Centers (DRCs) are one such alternative. Unfortunately, few rigorous evalu-

ations of DRCs have been conducted to assess whether or not DRCs are

achieving these goals. In this article, we report the results of a randomized

controlled trial (RCT) performed to evaluate the effectiveness of Nevada’s

f‌irst DRC.

Day Reporting Centers in the U.S.

DRCs f‌irst began operating in the U.S. in the 1980s (Caputo, 2004) and have

since become a popular alternative to incarceration. Although there is varia-

tion in DRC models (see Caputo, 2004; Lanterman, 2020), there are three key

characteristics of DRCs. First, DRCs tend to target individuals on community

supervision who are deemed to be at medium-to-high risk of reoffending

(based on the ‘risk’principle; see Bonta & Andrews, 2017) and/or are at

risk of being revoked (Bahn & Davis, 1998; Parent et al., 1995). Second,

DRCs involve more intensive supervision compared to traditional community

supervision. For example, DRC off‌icers have an increased frequency of

contact with individuals on their caseloads (e.g., daily or weekly check-ins)

and conduct more frequent drug testing than traditional supervision (Bahn

& Davis, 1998; Parent et al., 1995). Third, DRCs require participation in

more intensive programming, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, substance

use treatment, or vocational/job skills training. In addition, DRCs usually

provide participants with greater access to services, such as housing or

employment services, compared to traditional supervision (Parent et al.,

1995).

In theory, these key features suggest DRC practices should align with

some of the principles of effective intervention (see Bogue et al., 2004).

According to the Risk-Need-Responsivity model (see Bonta & Andrews,

2017), to reduce recidivism, treatment and supervision intensity should

Belisle et al. 305