Discussion response on article summary for forensic populations | COUN 6511 – Treatment of Forensic Populations | Walden University

 In 200-250 words, read the below and provide one of the following:

• Ask a probing question.
• Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
• Offer and support an opinion.
• Validate an idea with your own experience.
• Make a suggestion.
• Expand on your colleague’s posting.

For this assignment I selected a meta-analysis article on the effects of Day Reporting Centers (DRC) on recidivism. A DRC is a court-ordered form of community supervision that is more intensive than traditional probation though less restrictive than incarceration. Individuals ordered to participate in a DRC are required to report to a center each day for programming and / or treatment but are then allowed to return to their homes at night.

This meta-analysis included a review of nine studies published between 1996 and 2017 that were found through a search criterion for crime, evaluation, and DRC. The researchers noted that a primary limitation in this study was the heterogeneity amongst studies in the sample. This means that studies varied in terms of DRC structure, program availability, and how recidivism was defined. As Geyer (2009) noted, recidivism is often a dichotomous measurement. However, some studies in the sample defined recidivism by whether the individual was arrested, convicted, reincarcerated, or a combination of these, adding to the heterogeneity of the studies. Overall, the findings in this study suggest that DRCs for adult offenders are no different in terms of recidivism outcomes than traditional supervision options (Wong et al., 2019). However, it was noted that front-end DRCs (i.e., those used as a means of supervision prior to incarceration) had a more significant impact on recidivism than back-end DRCs (those used to help transition an individual from prison to community). The researchers noted that the statistical significance of treatment impact varies based on how recidivism is measured. They recommend that future studies involving DRCs should deliberately include details of the program so they can be better compared and contrasted with other programs (Wong et al.).

Though recidivism can be easy to measure (Geyer, 2009), the definition of it becomes more complex. As Wong et al. (2019) noted, the studies in their sample varied in terms of how recidivism was defined. Additionally, the variance in what the DRCs were offering in terms of treatment or services creates several moderating variables. What I took from the study is that when you are trying to determine an effect on recidivism, you need to be very specific in how you are defining recidivism as well as which intervention you are measuring effect for. For example, it would not be enough to say you want to determine if a DRC reduces recidivism but rather if a specific drug treatment program administered through a DRC has an effect on re-arrest rates for drug offenses.

References

Geyer, M.D. (2009). Treatment outcome models. Walden University.

Wong, J.S., Bouchard, J., Lee, C., & Gushue, K. (2019). Examining the effects of day reporting centers on recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(3), 240-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1583300