UC Riverside

Day reporting centers (DRCs) are increasingly popular alternative to traditional forms of supervision. Yet, studies that describe a fairly common set of programs and services among DRCs produce conflicting results regarding their efficacy, suggesting that as yet unobserved characteristics of DRCs might explain their varying efficacy. This article relies on a mixed-methods analysis of DRCs. Using quasi-experimental regression techniques and a conservative control group to estimate the average treatment effect of DRC participation, we analyze recidivism outcomes (arrests and convictions) after a 2-year follow-up period. We then draw on qualitative interview data to reveal which aspects of the DRC programs’ clients identify as most important for successful re-entry. Our analysis suggests that DRCs reduce recidivism for participants by 10.8 (convictions) to 12.8 (arrests) percentage points. Our interview data suggest that high levels of social support from justice-involved DRC staff amplify the effects of programming to help explain this outcome.