1. New Jersey Community Resource Centers

New Jersey Community Resource Centers

Program Goals

Community Resource Centers (CRCs), also known as Day Reporting Centers, are nonresidential multiservice centers that facilitate parolees’ successful reintegration back into the community by offering a combination of services and supervision. They serve as community-based alternative sanctions for technical parole violators or as a condition of parole on release from prison. The New Jersey State Parole Board (NJSPB) uses CRCs as one approach to parole supervision.


Program Components

The centers are open 7 days a week and offer educational services; assistance in obtaining a GED; vocational and skills training, employment preparation and job placement; substance use education and programming; family counseling; and life skills training. Typical participation in the CRCs is 90 days.


There are several CRCs located throughout the State of New Jersey. Although the various centers follow the same model of parole supervision, the programmatic concentration and quality of services are not uniform from site to site. For example, the Essex County Day Reporting Center provides specialized reentry services for female offenders. The center provides transitional housing and case management services, including employment assistance, parenting skills, and vocational training.


Program Theory

During the 1980s and 1990s, New Jersey, like many other States, saw a dramatic rise in its State prison population. At the same time, the number of parole revocations that resulted in a return to prison for parolees also greatly increased. This significant growth of admissions to prison, especially the admission of technical parole violators, placed enormous pressure on the State correctional budget. In 2001, the NJSPB responded to this issue by developing a new approach to manage parole violators, especially technical violators, emphasizing the use of intermediate sanctions and evidence-based practices.


CRCs can serve as intermediate sanctions for parole violators who have not complied with conditions of supervision or as stipulation of parole on release from prison. In either case, CRCs are designed to keep technical parole violators out of incarceration—thereby not contributing to the prison population—while providing appropriate treatment services that help parolees reintegrate back into the community and reduce the chances of recidivism or parole violation.

Intervention ID

18 to 100


Study 1


Ostermann (2009) found that 65 percent of the total sample were rearrested, 45 percent were reconvicted, and 32 percent were reincarcerated. Chi-square tests revealed significant differences for all measures of recidivism among all four groups.



Fifty-eight percent of parolees released to a Day Reporting Center (DRC) were rearrested following release from prison, compared with 59 percent of Halfway Back (HWB) program participants, 62 percent of parolees who did not participate in a community program, and 79 percent of parolees who maxed out their prison sentence and received no community supervision.


Survival tests indicated that max-outs were the quickest to be rearrested; they were arrested for a new crime on average 315.21 days after their 2004 release. Parolees who received no community programming were rearrested on average 347.23 days after release. DRC participants lasted longer, with an average time to rearrest of 360.53 days, and HWB participants lasted considerably longer, with an average of 455.81 days to rearrest.


The multivariate analyses, which controlled for demographics and criminal history, revealed that parolees who did not participate in community programs were about 58 percent less likely to reoffend compared to the max-out group. Those paroled to DRCs were 68 percent less likely to be rearrested than the max-out group, and HWB program participants were 64 percent less likely to be rearrested than the max-out group.


The final analysis using a Cox-proportional hazards test revealed that only the HWB program obtained statistically significant odds ratios, showing that those participants were roughly 38 percent more likely to stay arrest-free than the max-out group, when controlling for all predictor variables.



Participants in DRCs had the lowest reconviction rates. Thirty-two percent of DRC participants were reconvicted for one of their charges, compared with 59 percent of HWB participants, 62 percent of parolees who did not participate in a community program, and 61 percent of parolees who maxed out their sentence.


Multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the max-out group and the parolees who participated in community programs. The DRC participants were 73 percent less likely than the max-out group to be reconvicted, and the HWB program participants were 68 percent less likely to be reconvicted than the max-out group.



Although DRC participants did not have the lowest reincarceration rates, they did have significantly lower rates than parolees who either did not receive community programming or maxed out their prison sentence. HWB participants had the lowest rate of reincarceration (17 percent), compared with 20 percent of DRC participants, 39 percent of parolees with no community programming, and 46 percent of max-outs.


Multivariate analysis of the reincarceration data showed similar significant results to the reconviction outcomes. The DRC participants were about 73 percent less likely than the max-out group to be reincarcerated. The HWB program participants were less likely than the max-out group to be reincarcerated by roughly 76 percent.

Topics - Placeholder

2 4 28 35 36 59 166 168 188 190 191 192 195 196