U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Survey of Reception-Diagnostic Centers for Adult Offenders in the United States

NCJ Number
70070
Author(s)
R R Strommel
Date Published
1970
Length
49 pages
Annotation
Reception-diagnostic centers for adult offenders are investigated and analyzed with respect to their present state of development and major problems.
Abstract
A survey of the literature in the field from 1945 to 1967 reveals that the amount of published information is limited and that a need exists for wider dissemination of material specifically discussing reception-diagnostic centers and their operation. A 50-item questionnaire was designed to probe the functions of 10 specific areas within the reception-diagnostic center. These areas were personnel, administration, reception procedures, program of activities, testing program, transfer procedures, reports, followup procedures, staff conferences, and problem areas. After pretesting by administrative officials of Florida Division of Corrections and University of Florida graduate students in criminology, the questionnaire was mailed to the Division of Corrections, or its equivalent, in each State. Specific types of responses for each State are listed separately in the survey results. Comparison of the 24 States responding to the survey indicates a wide degree of variance in all areas considered. In some instances, the respondent was unable to equate the operation in question with any of the other methods being used. Gaps in the standardization of centers' administrative and operational procedures were apparent. Expansion of interstate communication between the staff of the various centers would do much to achieve a degree of standardization of diagnosis and treatment. This need is illustrated by the fact that inmates often serve sentences in more than one State and are therefore subjected to a variety of treatment programs. Finally, the minimal and often inadequate responses to the survey reveal a certain lethargy wiithin corrections. A sample questionnaire is not provided. Appendixes contain two letters that accompanied the questionnaire.