Day Reporting Centers as an Intermediate Sanction: Evaluation of Programs Operated by the ATTIC Correctional Services

• NCJ Number: 165726
• Author(s): A Craddock; L A Graham
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 169 pages
• Grant Number(s): 93-IJ-CX-4048
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Corporate Author: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services; Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This report presents the methodology and findings of a process and outcome evaluation of three Wisconsin day reporting centers (DRC's) operated by the ATTIC Correctional Services.

Abstract

Two of the DRC's have similar schedules and content. They consist of three 4-week phases in decreasing levels of intensity, followed by 3 months of aftercare. All clients have a case manager who monitors client progress, provides individual counseling, and coordinates client activities with the Division of Probation and Parole and other agencies. Programming is provided in three major areas: alcohol and other drug abuse, criminality issues, and independent living skills. The third DRC is one of a statewide group of programs modeled on the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime approach. ATTIC provides case management for male clients and conducts a Corrective Thinking group. Case management includes assessment, referral to appropriate services, urinalyses, and periodic meetings regarding progress and plans. The program is designed to last 6 months. The evaluation used a quasi-experimental design and compared ATTIC clients to probationers overall in their respective counties and to ATTIC-eligible probationers (substance-abusing probationers). The process evaluation focused on DRC differences by type of location, implementation issues, types of offenders served, and factors associated with the successful completion of DRC programs. The evaluation of client outcomes addressed factors associated with the rearrest of DRC clients and the arrests of DRC clients compared to other probationers. Overall, the evaluation shows that DRC's provide a viable correctional treatment option for the highest risk offenders supervised in the community; however, because the evaluation did not use an experimental design, it cannot conclude that program participation, or the lack thereof, is the primary factor that influenced recidivism. Recommendations are offered for improving program operations and evaluation research. 13 references and appended interview protocols, program observation protocol, client satisfaction survey, and focus group protocol