UNDER SURVEILLANCE: AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING

Research Summary: This study addresses the effectiveness of electronic monitoring (EM) for serious offenders supervised in the community. Using data on 75,661 offenders placed on home confinement in Florida from 1998 to 2002, we find that both radio-frequency and global positioning system monitoring significantly reduce the likelihood of technical violations, reoffending, and absconding for this population of offenders. Additionally, we find that offenders placed on home confinement with EM are significantly more serious than those placed on home confinement without EM, which casts doubt on the anticipated net-widening effect of this particular intermediate sanction. Policy Implications: Given the anticipated increase in the use of EM in the immediate future, policy makers will surely be faced with questions about its effectiveness in preventing or deterring further criminal activity among offenders in the community, as well as concerns about the intensity of surveillance it affords and a subsequent increase in the likelihood of a prison sentence or return to prison for technical violations. The results presented here suggest that such concerns may be overblown and that EM of offenders in the community may prove an effective public safety alternative to prison. Additional implications of this research include decision making regarding which offenders should be placed on EM, which type of monitoring device will be the most cost-effective and efficient, and the potential for front-end net-widening if states adopt the practice of “Got ‘em?’ Use ‘em.’”

[1]  Michalis Lianos.  Social Control After Foucault / Le Contrôle Social après Foucault. , 2002 .

[2]  Evan Mayo-Wilson,et al.  Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? , 2005 .

[3]  J. H. Hylton.  Rhetoric and Reality: A Critical Appraisal of Community Correctional Programs , 1982 .

[4]  William D. Bales,et al.  Intermediate punishment: Redistributing or extending social control? , 1993 .

[5]  R. Gainey,et al.  Changing Attitudes Toward House Arrest With Electronic Monitoring: The Impact of a Single Presentation? , 2003, International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology.

[6]  R. Walters.  Alternatives to Youth Imprisonment: Evaluating the Victorian Youth Attendance Order , 1996 .

[7]  N. Morris,et al.  Crime and justice : an annual review of research , 1980 .

[8]  Sudipto Roy.  FIVE YEARS OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF ADULTS AND JUVENILES IN LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON FACTORS RELATED TO FAILURE , 1997 .

[9]  Joan Petersilia,et al.  Comparing Intensive and Regular Supervision for High-Risk Probationers: Early Results from an Experiment in California , 1990 .

[10]  J. Robert Lilly,et al.  Electronic Monitoring of the Drunk Driver: A Seven-Year Study of the Home Confinement Alternative , 1993 .

[11]  B. McCarthy.  Intermediate punishments : intensive supervision, home confinement, and electronic surveillance , 1987 .

[12]  R. Gainey,et al.  The relationships between time in jail, time on electronic monitoring, and recidivism: An event history analysis of a jail-based program , 2000 .

[13]  Jeffery T. Ulmer.  Intermediate Sanctions: A Comparative Analysis of the Probability and Severity of Recidivism , 2001 .

[14]  M. Finn,et al.  The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees , 2002 .

[15]  Arthur J. Lurigio,et al.  Smart sentencing : the emergence of intermediate sanctions , 1992 .

[16]  Marc Renzema.  Electronic Monitoring's Impact on Reoffending , 2003 .

[17]  E. Lemert.  Visions of Social Control: Probation Considered , 1993 .

[18]  J. Lowman,et al.  Transcarceration: Essays in the Sociology of Social Control , 1987 .

[19]  Kathy G. Padgett,et al.  Applying a Crime Seriousness Scale to Measure Changes in the Severity of Offenses by Individuals Arrested in Florida , 2004 .

[20]  Billie S. Erwin.  Old and New Tools for the Modern Probation Officer , 1990 .

[21]  K. Lucken.  Privatizing Discretion: “Rehabilitating” Treatment in Community Corrections , 1997 .

[22]  Robert D. Hanser,et al.  Community Corrections , 2019, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology.

[23]  Electronic jails: A new criminal justice concern , 1985 .

[24]  Thomas G. Blomberg.  Diversion and Accelerated Social Control , 1977 .

[25]  Joseph E. Scott,et al.  House Arrest and Correctional Policy: Doing Time at Home , 1988 .

[26]  James Austin,et al.  NCCD Research Review : Wider, Stronger, and Different Nets: the Dialectics of Criminal Justice Reform , 1981 .

[27]  M. Maxfield,et al.  A comparative analysis of three electronically monitored home detention programs , 1993 .

[28]  David Murakami Wood,et al.  Social Control after Foucault. , 2003 .

[29]  P. Elrod,et al.  Electronic House Arrest: An Examination of Citizen Attitudes , 1995 .

[30]  R. Tewksbury,et al.  Predictors of Success and Recidivism in a Home Incarceration Program , 2000 .

[31]  F. Taxman,et al.  Expediting Court Dispositions: Quick Results, Uncertain Outcomes , 1999 .

[32]  N. Morris,et al.  Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System , 1990 .

[33]  A. Blumstein.  U.S. Criminal Justice Conundrum: Rising Prison Populations and Stable Crime Rates , 1998 .

[34]  M. Mcmahon.  ‘NET-WIDENING’ Vagaries in the Use of a Concept , 1990 .

[35]  Thomas G. Blomberg,et al.  Stacking the Deck by Piling Up Sanctions: Is Intermediate Punishment Destined to Fail? , 1994 .

[36]  T. Clear,et al.  The offender in the community: Implications of the experience in the United States for the new Czech Republic , 1997 .

[37]  M. W. Klein,et al.  Deinstitutionalization and Diversion of Juvenile Offenders: A Litany of Impediments , 1979, Crime and Justice.

[38]  Thomas G. Blomberg,et al.  Punishment and Social Control , 2003 .

[39]  Gary T. Marx,et al.  Critique: No soul in the new machine: Technofallacies in the electronic monitoring movement , 1991 .

[40]  B. Berg,et al.  Effects of House Arrest with Electronic Monitoring on DUI Offenders. , 1997 .

[41]  B. Stipak,et al.  Drug Treatment and Electronically Monitored Home Confinement: An Evaluation of a Community-Based Sentencing Option , 1992 .

[42]  J. Bonta,et al.  Can Electronic Monitoring Make a Difference? An Evaluation of Three Canadian Programs , 2000 .

[43]  E. Lemert.  Diversion in Juvenile Justice: What Hath been Wrought , 1981 .

[44]  James Bonta,et al.  A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program , 2000 .

[45]  R. Gainey,et al.  Attitudes toward Electronic Monitoring among Monitored Offenders and Criminal Justice Students. , 1999 .

[46]  R. Gainey,et al.  Electronic Monitoring , 2000, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology.

[47]  C. Frazier,et al.  Reducing Juvenile Detention Rates or Expanding the Official Control Nets: An Evaluation of a Legislative Reform Effort , 1992 .