Day Reporting Centers - Research Paper Example

?Day Reporting Centers Introduction The growing problems of handling prisoners as well as cost-effective management of prisons have alarmed various local and national governments all other the world. The increase of crimes and imprisoned offenders cannot be prevented due to the parallel factors that accompany it. Policy-makers instead focus on ways to effectively manage concerns on prison overcrowding without necessarily setting up as many prison cells as possible. In addition to prison overcrowding, concerns about minor offenses were also taken into consideration when it comes imprisonment and rehabilitation. Segregation of cells may prove to be useful for a while but the psychological and social impacts of the practice proved detrimental to many offenders who may not actually deserve such harsh treatments. Alternatives to imprisonment and rehabilitation process for inmates were an evolution of the penology system. This paper will discuss day reporting center as an alternative to imprisonment and as a rehabilitation program. It will determine the positive and negative aspects of the program through consideration of actual studies and recommend proposals for consideration. Section 1: The Day Reporting Center chosen for this essay is the Hampden County Day reporting Center. It supervises inmates who are within four months of release. These inmates live in their homes, they have work, and were involved in positive activities in the community (McCarthy, 2011). Day reporting centers hae become an alternative to jail sentencing with the integration of community service while serving the sentences of inmates. Intensive programming with cost-effective system and intensive supervision to ensure community safety are some of its features (Marciniak, 1999). Prior to the formal launching of the day reporting center in October 1986, Hampden already had a history of a pre-release center. The area used was the Sheriff’s House as initiated by county Sheriff Michael Ashe. The inmates who were part of the pre-release program work and join community service as well as participate in activities for Alcoholics Anonymous, work-out regimens at YMCA, and Narcotics Anonymous (McCarthy 2011). The history of the use of day reporting center dates back to early 1970s in the United Kingdom when there was a clamor for an option for older petty criminals (Larivee, 1990). In addition, probation officials also noted the need to inmates for continued family and social ties as well as secure or continue employment. The UK Parliament created the day treatment centers as requested by the British Home Office in 1972. Prison overcrowding was also an immediate reason for the adoption of local probation agencies and open centers for group rehabilitation (Parent, 1990). In addition, the prison officers were also having problems addressing behaviour of offenders who have the least criminal cases (Mair, 1990). Day treatment centers were formalized with the passing f the Criminal Justice Act of 1982 so that there were already about 80 that existed by mid 1980s in England and Wales (Mair, 1990). Characteristics of day reporting centers, however, varied (Marciniak, 1999). There are various other reasons for the justification of the creation of day reporting centers such as cost-effectiveness, incapacity, retribution, and rehabilitation. It has been considered as different from other rehabilitation programs for its marked concentration on rehabilitation as the staff assess individual needs and offenses prior to consideration for day reporting enter participation (Marciniak, 1999). The launch of the Day Reporting Center was due to the worsening overcrowding. The staffs are those already experienced in the Sheriff’s House so that the program drew from actual experience. Key program features include the monitoring of behaviour, thus, the participants were required to report and call daily at the center and observed by the staff. They also follow a strict daily schedule such as being home when expected to there, and they are monitored through computerized random calls from an electronic monitoring system. They also need to pass the frequent and random urinalysis tests that detect alcohol or drug use. Community officers also help in the monitoring through random calls of up to 80 times per week (McCarthy, 2011). A counsellor meets participants at the beginning of each week for charting schedule of work and attendance at community activities. They are expected to follow their schedule to the dot. However, it should be understood that the day reporting center is different from a house arrest as they spend many of their time outside their homes and in the community. It serves as the “ultimate carrot… inmates who behave well in jail can serve the end of their sentence at home,” (McCarthy, 2011, 7). Program participation and good behaviour are the predictors for inmates who join day reporting, although they are still serving their sentence for offenses (McCarthy, 2011). McCarthy provided positive feedbacks with regards to their experience with Day Reporting Center. They noted that “individuals who earn the opportunity for home and community participation at the end of their sentences have an improved chance of successful community re-entry,” (McCarthy, 2011, 8) as compared to a release from higher security setting. In addition, the program results to positive contribution to the community as the inmates work, pay taxes, and perform community service for free (McCarthy, 2011). There were also disadvantages seen against day reporting centers. Net-widening or the recruitment of non-repetitive offenders to more serious criminal activities is one, and another is the cost of supervision as there is an increased number of officers involved in the rehabilitation of individuals or groups who are integrated back to the community. Safety of community may also be compromised in the process (Maziniak, 1999). While a long-term study to provide a more solid evidence against these claims, there are truths in the positions of those who are against day reporting centers and other options for incarceration or rehabilitation. Section 2 The review criteria for a successful day reporting center will be determined with the average success rehabilitation against the deterioration of the participants. Success would mean improved behaviour and release from prison while deterioration would mean the worsening condition or behaviour of the inmate so that release was not the consequence of the day reporting center participation. The review will be based on the study of North Carolina prison which implemented the day reporting center program. It used as an intermediate sanction for about 204 inmates on the study (Marciniak, 1999). The judges usually use discretion in the imposition of intermediate and community punishments such as structured sentencing, active prison sentence, or intermediate sanction. Structured sentencing and intermediate sanctions were a response of prison overcrowding through the mandate of the 1994 North Carolina Structured Sentencing Act. This meant that the prison cells have a cap of 98% full that requires release of prisoners when it was at 98% full for 15 days (Marciniak, 1999). The program targeted the following population to participate in the program: felon probation violators for first priority, felon offenders in the I/A (Intermediate sanction for Active prison) cells of the grid for second priority, and misdemeanor probation violators as third priority (Marciniak, 1999). The day reporting center had four phases and lasted about 12 months. 75% of the participants are on intermediate sanction prison or ISP and they followed the strict schedule of curfew from 7 pm to 7 am, contact their probation officer at least five times per week, subject to warrantless searches, submit to random drug tests, perform community service, or go to work/school. Drug treatment may also be required depending on findings about the inmate. Aside from these, also the schedules mentioned in section one had to be complied with. Three inappropriate behavior such as missed appointments or positive drug tests leads to termination from the program. The 204 inmates were convicted of felony (101 offenders), misdemeanour (91), and 12 as driving while intoxicated. By June 1998, the study found that 135 already have terminated cases or about 66%, 8 or 4% were considered inactive or temporarily terminated, 40 or 20% were active, and only 21 or 10% have graduated cases. According to the author, the failure rate is high. One of the reasons provided was the length of the program which is one year as there was a greater time at risk. The population was also a factor for failure as the targets were chronic mid-range offenders who are considered “prison-bound” (Marciniak, 1999, 216). The participants were also mostly under regular probation or intensive supervision probation which increases the likelihood for offender exposure. Another reason of the failure of the program was a finding that about 92% of the participants reported use of drug or alcohol prior to staring the program. It has been suggested that active drug use usually increases criminal activity and recidivism (Lipton, 1995). In another study undertaken by Diggs (1995) in Orange County in Florida in 1993, 82% of the 123 offenders were considered successful participants. Only one was rearrested while in the program, but 8% were arrested after the program completion, Completion and arrest time starts at about 7.5 months up to 17 months. Four of the seven offenders who were rearrested had committed new misdemeanors and three committed felony. They were all repeat offenders prior to day reporting center program participation. This meant that the rearrested inmates were hardened criminals and that the DRC failed to alter their behavior. The study concluded that the day reporting center program of Orange County was successful and an effective alternative from incarceration. The study also concluded that, “Day Reporting has helped relieve jail overcrowding, has provided treatment and supervision of the offender and has lowered costs,” (8). Conclusion and Recommendation The problem of prison overcrowding seemed universal. The reasons are obvious: growing economic challenges per every country or local government unit, increasing populations everywhere, decreased social services or less access to social programs such as education and skills development, social and individual behaviors and differences, and many others. The emergence of alternative to imprisonment therefore becomes necessary not only to address overcrowding in prisons but also to lessen the negative impact of the punishment to minor offenses and even accidental ones. Other reasons for options to imprisonment may be present depending on local or individual situations. But the introduction of day reporting center has been considered as a necessity when it was first conceived and continues being such until today despite criticisms. There are many benefits derived from day reporting centers but most obvious of which is the economic nature: provision of free service to the community, payment of taxes by inmates, and the chance for inmates to work. Another important benefit that has been observed was the easier integration of the offender to home and community life. The exposure to mingle with people and trust developed during the process are factors that must have contributed for the development of the positive behaviour of the inmate. With these indications and results, day reporting center as an alternative to incarceration may be developed further to maximize its benefits. Governments should start adopting employment for high-demand but least-liked tasks such as waste sorting and recycling, composting and production of manure and organic fertilizer, organic farming, and other productive and positive works for prisoners. The prisoners have no choice or options with regards the tasks given them. Aside from having incomes, they also provide for their family and the community in general, not to mention their contribution to the ecology, environment and sustainability. But when it comes to the success rate of day reporting center, its result may vary depending on variables. As mentioned in Marciniak’s study, success may be elusive for some county prisons. While a long term and wider scale study may still be required to determine a consisted result as well as define the factors that contribute to its success or failure, suggestions of the other findings should not be ignored altogether. Reference: Larivee, J. (1990). Day reporting centers: Making their way from the U.K. to the U.S. Corrections Today, 52, 84-89. Lipton, D. S. (1995). The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Mair, G. (1990, March). Day centres in England and Wales. IARCA Journal, 3, p. 9. Marciniak, L.M. (1999). The use of day reporting as an intermediate sanction: a study of offender targeting and program termination. The Prison Journal 1999 79: 205. McCarthy, R. (2011). The Hampden County Day Reporting Center: Three Years’ Success in Supervising. Accessed from http://nicic.gov/Library/Files/period74.pdf Parent, D.G. (1990). Day reporting centers for criminal offenders: A descriptive analysis of existing programs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Read More