skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 221290 Find in a Library
Title: Assessment of County Restrictive Intermediate Punishment Programming
Author(s): Toni Dupont-Morales; Barbara Sims Ph.D.
Corporate Author: Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg
School of Public Affairs
United States of America
Date Published: March 2001
Page Count: 29
Sponsoring Agency: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1167
Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg
Middletown, PA 17054-4898
Sale Source: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
P. O. Box 1167
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1167
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Program/Project Description
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This report is an assessment of county-based treatment services provided to restrictive intermediate punishment (RIP) offenders.
Abstract: Results indicate that Philadelphia counties are assessing offenders with drug and/or alcohol dependency following the Philadelphia Client Placement Criteria (PCPC) guidelines for assessment, and that no eligible offenders are being denied an RIP sentence due to lack of a treatment slot. The current data file, developed to enable further data entry and evaluation of RIP client information, enables the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) to examine, by county, the number of clients placed in RIP programming, along with basic demographic backgrounds of those clients, clients' past history with drugs/alcohol, and initial level of care for those clients. The information reported provides the PCCD with some insights into how eligibility of RIP clients are determined: by number of clients; by county placed in RIP programming; initial level of care for RIP clients; success/failure rate of RIP clients; length of time in treatment for RIP clients; and, event histories of RIP clients. Problems with RIP include a concern that counties are not reporting information, or that they are reporting incomplete information. The protocol calls for individuals to keep an event history of RIP clients in the individual client files, and to only submit the outcome form once the client has been successfully or unsuccessfully released from RIP treatment. According to data from the outcome data file, and as of August 2000, RIP counties reported that 230 clients had successfully completed RIP programming (24 percent), and that 300 (32 percent) of the clients had been unsuccessfully released from RIP programming. Accordingly, and again relying on information reported to the research team, there were approximately 400 (43 percent) clients still under RIP treatment as of August, 2000. Tables, appendices
Main Term(s): Drug offenders; Mixed sentences; Sentencing guidelines
Index Term(s): Alcohol abuse; Alternatives to institutionalization; Drug treatment
Note: Downloaded January 23, 2008
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.