Examining the effects of day reporting centers on recidivism: A meta-analysis

References

• *Anderson, J. L. (2002). Overview of the Illinois DOC High-Risk Parolee Re-Entry Program and 3-year recidivism outcomes of program participants. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review, 11(1/2), 4–6.
   Google Scholar
• Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitney, K., Drake, E., Grice, J., Hirsch, M., & Lee, S. (2017). The effectiveness of reentry programs for incarcerated persons: Findings for the Washington Statewide Reentry Council (Document Number 17-05- 1901). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Bouchard, J., & Wong, J. S. (2017). A jury of their peers: A meta-analysis of the effects of Teen Court on criminal recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(7), 1472–1487. doi:10.1007/s10964-017-0667-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouchard, J., & Wong, J. S. (2018). The new Panopticon? Examining the effect of home confinement on criminal recidivism. Victims & Offenders, 13(5), 589–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Boyle, D. J., Ragusa-Salerno, L. M., Lanterman, J. L., & Fleisch Marcus, A. (2013). An evaluation of day reporting centers for parolees: Outcomes of a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy, 12(1), 119–143. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caputo, G. A. (2004). Intermediate sanctions in corrections. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Craddock, A. (2004). Estimating criminal justice system costs and cost-savings benefits of day reporting centers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(4), 69–98. doi:10.1300/J076v39n04_05
   Google Scholar
• *Craddock, A., & Graham, L. A. (1996). Day Reporting Centers as an intermediate sanction: Evaluation of programs operated by the ATTIC Correctional Services. Bethesda, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.
   Google Scholar
• Craddock, A., & Graham, L. A. (2001). Recidivism as a function of day reporting center participation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(1), 81–97. doi:10.1300/J076v34n01_06
   Google Scholar
• Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001). Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In M. Egger, G. Smith, & D. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. (2nd ed., pp. 285–312). London: BMJ Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.), 315(7109), 629–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guolo, A., & Varin, C. (2015). Random-effects meta-analysis: The number of studies matters. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 26(3), 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hyatt, J. M., & Ostermann, M. (2017). Better to stay home: Evaluating the impact of Day Reporting Centers on offending. Crime & Delinquency, 1–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jengeleski, J. L., & Gordon, M. S. (2010). Day Reporting Center clients compared to standard probation clients in Franklin County, PA. Harrisburg, PA: Franklin County Criminal Justice Advisory Board.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Applied social research methods series: Volume 49. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• McDevitt, J., & Miliano, R. (1992). Day reporting centers: An innovative concept in intermediated sanctions. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia. (Ed.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 152–165). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Nagin, D. S., Piquero, A. R., Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(4), 627–652. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00406.x
   Google Scholar
• *Oregon Department of Corrections. (2002). The effectiveness of community-based sanctions in reducing recidivism. Salem, OR: Community Corrections Commission, Oregon Department of Corrections.
   Google Scholar
• Ostermann, M., Salerno, L. M., & Hyatt, J. M. (2015). How different operationalizations of recidivism impact conclusions of effectiveness of parole supervision. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(6), 771–796. doi:10.1177/0022427815580626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ostermann, M. (2009). An analysis of New Jersey’s day reporting center and halfway back programs: Embracing the rehabilitative ideal through evidence based practices. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(2), 139–153. doi:10.1080/10509670802640958
   Google Scholar
• Parent, D. G. (1995). Day reporting centers. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• *Petroff, R. E. (2002). The effectiveness of Day Reporting Centers in reducing the likelihood of probation violations (Master’s Thesis). Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Center on the States (2017). U.S. Adult Incarceration Rate Declines 13% in 8 Years: Share of population behind bars falls back to 1998 level. Retrieved from: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2017/01/12/us-adult-incarceration-rate-declines-13-percent-in-8-years.
   Google Scholar
• Shadish, W. R., Matt, G. E., Navarro, A. M., & Phillips, G. (2000). The effect of psychological therapies under clinically representative conditions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 512–529. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.4.512
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171676.PDF
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, B., & Butler, H. D. (2013). Why didn’t they work? Thoughts on the application of New Jersey Day Reporting Centers. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(1), 153–162. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner, B., Makarios, M. D., Travis, L. F., & Meade, B. (2012). Examining the effects of community-based sanctions on offender recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 29(2), 229–257. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.555413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonry, M., & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. Crime and Justice, 20, 99–144. doi:10.1086/449242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry (1st ed.). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weisburd, D. (2010). Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: Challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(2), 209–227. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9096-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodahl, E. J., Boman, J. H., & Garland, B. E. (2015). Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 242–250. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.04.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodahl, E. J., Oggle, R., & Heck, C. (2011). Revocation trends: A threat to the legitimacy of community-based corrections. The Prison Journal, 91(2), 207–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Zhou, C., Kulick, E., Dalton, E., & Collins, K. (2014). The costs and benefits of Day Reporting Centers: A new model of adult probation in Allegheny County. Pittsburgh, PA: The Allegheny County Department of Human Services.
   Google Scholar