Recidivism as a function of day reporting center participation

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 81-97

  Craddock, Amy ^a   Graham, Laura A ^b  

^a INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b IQVIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Day reporting center; Probationers; Rearrest; Recidivism

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937340278     PISSN: 10509674     EISSN: 15408558     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J076v34n01_06     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Allison, P. D., 1999. Logistic regression using the SAS System:Theory and application, Cary, NC:SAS Institute.
2. Corbett, R. P., 1992. Day centers and the advent of a mixed-model in corrections. IARCA Journal, 4(6):26
3. Craddock, A., and Graham, L. A., 1996. “Day reporting centers as an intermediate sanction:Evaluation of programs operated by The ATTIC Correctional Services”. In Final report, NIJ grant 93-IJ-CX-4048, Bethesda, MD:Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. (Available upon request from NIJ as NCJ 165726)
4. Craddock, A., and Overman, K. G., 1999. Interim outcomes in community corrections programs:Examination of program, service, and offender characteristics. Presented at American Society of Criminology. 1999. unpublished
5. Curtin, E. L., 1992. Day reporting-alive and well in Massachusetts. IARCA Journal, 4(6):8–9.
6. Davies, M., 1993. Punishing criminals:Developing community-based intermediate sanctions, Westport, CF:Greenwood Press.
7. Diggs, D. W., and Pieper, S. L., 1994. Using day reporting centers as an alternative to jail. Federal Probation, 58:9–12.
8. Gendreau, P., Cullen, F. F., and Bonta, J., 1994. Intensive rehabilitation supervision:Fhe next generation in community corrections?. Federal Probation, 58:72–78.
9. Jones, P. R., 1991. Fhe risk of recidivism:Evaluating the public-safety implications of a community corrections program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19:49–66.
10. MacKenzie, D. L., and Souryal, C., 1994. “Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration”. In National Institute of Justice Research Report, Washington, DC:U.S. Dept. of Justice.
11. Marciniak, L. M., 1999. Fhe use of day reporting as an intermediate sanction:A study of offender targeting and program termination. The Prison Journal, 79(2):205–225.
12. McDevitt, J., and Miliano, R., 1992. “Day reporting centers:An innovative concept in intermediated sanctions”. In Smart sentencing:The emergence of intermediate sanctions, Smart sentencing:The emergence of intermediate sanctions, Edited by:Byrne, J. M., Lurigio, A J., and Petersilia, J., 152–165. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
13. McDonald, D. C., Greene, J., and Worzella, C., eds. 1992. Day fines in American courts:The Staten Island and Milwaukee experiments, Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.
14. Parent, D. G., 1990. Day reporting centers for criminal offenders:A descriptive analysis of existing programs, Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.
15. Parent, D. G., Byrne, J., Tsarfaty, V., Valade, F., and Esselman, J., 1995. Day reporting centers, Vol. 1 and 2, Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.
16. Petersilia, J., and Turner, S., 1991. Evaluation of intensive probation in California. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82:610–658.
17. Petersilia, J., and Turner, S., 1993. “Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole:Results of a nationwide experiment”. In National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.
18. Shaw, J. W., and MacKenzie, D. L., 1991. Shock incarceration and its impact on the lives of problem drinkers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 16(1):63–96.
19. General, U. S., 1990. “Accounting Office, Program Evaluation and Methodology Division.”. In Intermediate sanctions:Their impact on prison., Gaithersburg, MD:USGAO.
20. Williams, S. D., 1990. Invisible jail:Day reporting centers. Corrections Compendium, 15(7):4–7. 1