Psf5371 Electronic Monitoring Paper
Running Head: Electronic Monitoring
Electronic Monitoring
Lisa Shade
PSF5371 Practices of Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections
March 15, 2013
Dr. Antonio Johnson
Abstract Electronic monitoring within the community corrections has been an alternative sentencing to incarceration since the 1990’s. Controvsary and debate over the use of this device has researchers compiled to show effectiveness. Through case studies, interviews, and surveys by offenders demonstrates the electronic monitoring program has positive outcomes and defers further criminal activates. The future of electronic monitoring programs surrounds the design and applications of effective programs for offenders. Electronic monitoring is going to be an effective tool, which community corrections sanction use because of the …show more content…
cost-effectiveness as well as the decrease in overcrowded prisons.
Table of Contents
Introduction 4
Background 4-6
Literature Review 6
Types of Electronic Monitoring Devices 7-8
Population 8-9
Advantages and Disadvantages 9-10
Methodology 10-13
Offenders Perspective 13-14
Programs and Applications 14-15
Issues Surrounding Electronic Monitoring 15-17
Designing and Applying Strategies 17-19
Summary 19
Annotated Bibliography 20-28
References 29-30
Electronic Monitoring
Introduction
The issues of electronic monitoring within community corrections have become a huge debate for two decades. The government has implemented electronic monitoring into the criminal justice system to help reduce crime, lower population within the prisons, and provide effectiveness. The research provides basic information surrounding the types of devices, history of electronic monitoring, types of research used for this project, evidence-based programs as well as strategies for future use.
Background
For several decades electronic monitoring has become a popular step within community corrections. “Electronic monitoring often is referred to as house arrest and serves to keep offenders in the community, and more important out of prison or jail while at the same time restricting their movements” (Vollum & Hale, 2002, p. 1). These devices have allowed the community corrections to monitor individuals to make sure they are not violating their restrictions. The electronic monitoring devices were not developed until the 1960s, by a psychologist, Robert Schwitzgebel. Schwitzgebel considered the device to be a humane and inexpensive alternative to custody for many people involved in the justice process (Howard, 2001, p. 1). An individual known as Judge Jack Love was viewing Spiderman comic books and saw a clip of a villain placing a device on Spiderman. This device was tracking Spiderman’s whereabouts. This gave Judge Love an idea to use this for offenders. In 1983 Judge Jack Love sentences the first offender to house arrest with the electronic monitoring device (Howard, 2001, p. 1). The use of the electronic monitoring within the community corrections system has grown rapidly as well as developed into one of the most popular electronic tools in community sanctions within the United States. A key concept with the background and history of electronic monitoring is the understanding of its use. Community corrections field has a huge position within the United States criminal justice system (DeMichele & Payne, 2009, p. 1). Prison or jail seems to occupy individuals through incarceration however “community correction agencies have always been mandated with achieving the dual role of providing mechanisms to motivate offenders behavioral change as well as restrictive mechanisms that incapacitate offenders through an assortment of conditions that suspend several civil liberties” (DeMichele & Payne, 2009, p. 1).
The Study The significance of this study is to show the evidence from both sides of the debate not only from societies stand point but also the offenders perspectives. This study is important to gain knowledge and understanding the concept of electronic monitoring of offenders as well as safety for the public. The experience of electronic monitoring on offenders leaves emotions or memories of the physical appearance, which the offenders have to face, not every offender is sentenced tot eh same conditions, therefore, providing the right sentencing with treatments may be what the community corrections needs to examine. The author of this particular research study aims to enlighten individuals the importance of this study.
The Problem Electronic monitoring is becoming a major tool in the criminal justice system. The “correctional population figures have grown steadily for the past thirty years” (DeMichele & Payne, 2009, p. 1). “Currently the community corrections field monitors more than five million adults and prisons or jails hold around 2.3 million adult” (DeMichele & Payne, 2009, p. 1). The United States is in a financial downfall and the community corrections field has to search for ways of improving efficiency as well as be effective. Electronic monitoring of offenders has society overwhelmed, fearful, and completing this study these questions will utilize the purpose:
1. Using electronic monitoring within community corrections, does this device have a positive effect on offenders?
2. What evidence from research can show positive outcomes of the devices being used within programs?
3. Are the devices being used for the right offenders?
4. What are the legal issues pertaining to electronic monitoring if any?
5. Are the electronic monitoring devices cost-effective in the long run?
Literature Review
Theoretical Framework The most startling theme to emerge from these articles is the extraordinarily prevalence of the controvsary with the use of electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring has become a part of the corrections complex even with the controvary among society. “In the United States only 826 offenders participated in electronic monitoring in 1987 (Howard, 2000, p. 3) however by 1998 over 95,000 offenders participated in the programs. Electronic monitoring is clearly a part of the community corrections however; electronic monitoring “is more often than not the result of power politics instead of rational appraisal of evidence as to what works to reduce crime” (Lilly, 2006, p. 1). The aspect of “electronic monitoring remains extraordinary understudied given what we know about the power and influence of privatization in criminal justice” (Lilly, 2006, p. 2).
Types of Electronic Monitoring Devices
Radio Frequency: Radio frequency was the first technological device used.
This device relies on radio frequency transmissions. The device was mostly used for imposing curfews for offenders. The device was usually put on the ankle of the individual and the receiver unit was connected to the offender’s home phone line. If for any reason the offender would stray to far from the receiver unit a signal would be transmitted to the monitoring center (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, 2005, p. 2).
Active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS): This device is more advanced than the radio frequency device. This device has been used since 1997. The device can be worn on the ankle or wrist but the offender has to carry the transmitter. This device uses the cell phone to transmit the signal to the monitoring center. The signal uses a global positioning satellite, which tracks the offender’s movement throughout the community. This technology allows probation officers to review the offender’s whereabouts as well as shows if the offenders enter a certain restricted area (OPPAGA, 2005, p.
2).
Passive Global Positioning Satellite (GPS): This device has many of the same features as the active global positioning satellite however this device does not report the offender’s real time action. This device does not show the offenders location. The device maintains a log of the offender’s locations through out the day but uses the telephone to transmit a report of the data collected for the day. The data is downloaded to the monitoring center for the probation office or correctional officers to review (OPPAGA, 2005, p. 2). These electronic monitoring devices are used for several individual populations.
Populations
Domestic Violence Offenders: Domestic violence offenders pose specific sets of risks and dangers to their victims and the communities in which they reside (American Probation and Parole Association, 2013, p. 227). These offenders cause serious physical and psychological trauma for their victims. Unfortunately these offenders are charged with misdemeanors and are supervised with electronic monitoring devices (APPA, 2013, p. 227). The victims fear for their safety because the offenders stalk and harass the victim after the abuse. The use of electronic monitoring in this case is to protect the victim.
Burglars and Car Thieves: These types of offenders need to be placed on electronic monitoring because their crimes are place-based (APPA, 2013, p. 228). These individuals commit the crimes at specific times and locations. Tracking the offenders can give insight into where the offenders have been and at what time (APPA, 2013, p. 228).
Sex Offenders/High-Risk Offenders: These offenders have society living in fear. “The general public as well as policymakers typically view sex offenders as a monolithic group, and community supervision officers are aware of the diversity of these offenders (APPA, 2013, p. 225). The crimes. Which sex offenders commit has a long lasting effect on the victims? These victims experienced trauma not only for themselves but also their families as well as the community, An important issue is the “media is quick to report the release of high-risk and potentially very dangerous sex offenders, which makes it more difficult for the community supervision officers to do their jobs” (APPA, 2013, p. 225). Sex offenders and high risk individuals need to be assessed on past criminal activities, past substance abuse, prior justice system experiences and any other charactertics which would provide insight into these behaviors (APPA, 2013, p. 228).
Advantages and Disadvantages Throughout the years many individuals such as researchers has debated over the use of electronic monitoring in the correctional system. The controvsary has become an issue of the effectiveness of the electronic monitoring programs. Technology is never fault free and issues do exist with the devices being used on offenders however does the advantages over rule the disadvantages? Given the debate of electronic monitoring in the community corrections system, technology has its downfalls but also has effectiveness.
Advantages:
According to Bottos (2007), the most salient and important advantages associated with electronic monitoring programs lie in their ability to aid probation and parole officers in monitoring as well as managing offenders behavior in the community (p. 4). Electronic monitoring provides a reliable basis of supervising control, which has the potential to reduce the offender’s likelihood of re-offending (Bottos, 2007, p. 4). Another effective use of the electronic monitoring system is through the criminal justice process. Electronic monitoring provides the offender the chance to serve a portion or the remainder time of the sentencing among the community. This action not only saves money but also decreases prison populations. Another advantage of this program is a major tool in offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration efforts (Bottos, 2007, p. 4). Offenders modify his or her anti social behavior, gradually shape, and internalization their behavioral control because the individual is constant under supervision. The electronic monitoring programs can also help to avoid the negative psychological effects associated with incarceration (Bottos, 2007, p. 4).
Disadvantages
Electronic monitoring has limitations, which cause disbelief toward the programs. The electronic monitoring equipment does not guarantee offenders to behave unlawfully or the correctional agencies will be able to intervene before a crime is committed. The equipment can only provide information, which it has been given such as where the offender is or has been. Another disadvantage is the device itself such as the capabilities of monitoring. These capabilities include technical faults, poor monitoring coverage, equipment failure, and uncomfortable devices (Bottos, 2007, p. 5). At the present no device is tamperproof. If an offender by chance gets the device removed the data or information will be lost. Another limitation is the electronic monitoring program of the “rehabilitative capacity of equipment in the absence of a program addressing offenders underlying criminal tendencies (Bottos, 2007, p. 4). The equipment can not pick up or signal the offender’s tendencies to commit another crime. Finally, the last limitation to the electronic monitoring program is the psychological effects. Offenders may experience emotional issues because of the devices these individual are required to wear. These devices are a constant reminder of the mistakes these individual have made and the consequences of their behavior. Individuals are reminded daily of being constantly monitored. Many offenders have issues with employment because most employers do not want to hire individuals with a criminal history or under restrict supervision. (Bottos, 2007, p. 4).
Methodology
Type of Research Method: The research method used for this study was mix method research, which is the combination of collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative approach was statistical tests to analysis research data to where the qualitative approach is non-judgmental approach to gain an understanding in questions from the subject’s point of view.
Data Collection: Different studies from articles as well as journals helped the author to understand the results of electronic monitoring within the community corrections, which was needed for this research study. The author also gathered data from case studies and interviews. The interviews consisted of questions, which the offenders openly discuss the experiences they had while in the electronic monitoring programs.
Case Study (Quantitative) Data was provided by the Florida Department of Corrections. The study was limited to medium to high risk offenders. This analysis, the electronic monitoring program was used as a treatment and not as a punishment. This study shows the electronic monitoring program reduces offender’s risk of failure by 31% at global positioning system (GPS) monitoring and results in 6% fewer supervision failures compared to the radio frequency (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 37). A score method was used to develop tests of the effect of the treatment as outcomes of offenders on different forms of community supervision (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p.41). The findings demonstrated the electronic monitoring program reduces offenders risk and the effect was reduced for violent offenders. Offenders of all groups and on different electronic monitoring forms in community corrections has benefited from these programs (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 54).
Case Study (Qualitative Analysis) The primary analysis was face-to-face interviews with offenders, officers, and administrators (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, BArrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 65). The information collected regarding the policies, practices, and processes of the electronic monitoring program as it utilized for the felony offenders living in the community was also used. Interviews were conducted over a two-day period in 2008. The interviews were approximately 45 minutes. The project consisted interviewing 161 offenders and 105 of these individuals were presently on the program (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 73). The findings from this analysis shows administrators reported electronic monitoring goals and objectives was being met, the electronic monitoring reduces undesirable behaviors, and electronic monitoring is used on approximately one-third of the cases. The negative aspect is the devices does cause consequences on the offenders families, employment opportunities, and these devices frequently lose the satellite signal resulting in numerous and unnecessary alerts (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 63).
Case Study of Luzerne County Pennsylvania: Luzerne County, Pennsylvania has 320,000 residents living within a 900 square miles. In 1998 the county was going to terminate the electronic monitoring program because of budget constraints and rising departmental cost (BI Technology, 2012, p. 1). BI Technology took over the responsibility for handling electronic monitoring. This company handles all duties from case management to intake assessment to fees and schedules. BI is monitoring between 140 to 160 offenders daily. The cost of the program for the participants is $12.95 daily at the expense of the offenders. The results of the program has shown a pro-active, community-based offenders monitoring program and close to 100% cost free to the correctional department. In 2009, the program saved $$.5 million bed cost, which saved 53,000 offenders incarceration days (BI Technology, 2012, p. 1). BI Technology managing the electronic monitoring has provided reduced administrative caseload duties, probation officers could focus on ensuring offender compliance, making home visits and tending court-related matters. This program restrained a successful completion rate and delivers strict accountability (BI Technology, 2012, p. 1).
Offenders Perspectives
Central District of California and Southern District Florida: In 1990, a study was conducted on electronic monitoring offenders and 45 federal sentenced paroles were interviewed to gain understanding from their perspective. Majority of the individuals interviewed stated the stressful part of the program was the restricted time (Howard, 2000, p. 8). Some found getting home from work because of traffic became an issue. The 45 individuals believed the electronic monitoring program is preferable because they can be home with family, which was a positive outcome for them.
Los Angeles Survey: In the Los Angeles area, a survey was conducted pertaining to attitude and personal benefits of the electronic monitoring program. 186 offenders were consulted for the survey. “74% of the individuals thought their sentence was fair while less than 9% thought their sentence was unfair, and 20% felt their sentence was too long however 2 offenders said their sentence should have been longer” (Howard, 2000, p. 8). The outcome of this survey showed 70% of the offenders on the program were less likely to commit another crime. After completion of the program 75% of the offenders said behaviors changed (Howard, 2000, p. 8).
British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan: In 1999, a study was conducted in parts of British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan. Only a minority of the offenders participating in the survey stated the program was difficult. 95% of the offenders stated one personal benefit was the ability to maintain close contact with family members (Howard, 2000, p. 9). The program also allowed these offenders to participate and maintain employment, care for their children as well as attend treatment programs. The positive percentage participating in the programs with positive outcomes was British Columbia at 86%, Newfoundland offenders at 89%, and Saskatchewan at 79% (Howard, 2000, p. 9).
Programs and Applications Electronic monitoring has emerged into the community corrections and was sanctioned for a variety of individuals. Electronic monitoring has been issued worldwide however the way community corrections apply these devices vary among offenders. Many factors are considered when offenders are sanctioned to electronic monitoring. The individuals risk level is the most important. Electronic monitoring is generally used either by itself or in conjunction with other forms of monitoring (Bottos, 2007, p. 3). The primary objective of these programs and electronic monitoring is to control offenders risk and ensure public safety (Bottos, 2007, p. 3).
Pre-Trial Stage: This stage is used by an offender as a condition of being granted bail. Using the electronic monitoring at this stage gives the offender options of returning home with family until his or her trial date. Monitoring an offender helps watch the individual from becoming a flight risk. According to Bottos (2007), this option has benefits as being cost-effective relative to incarceration and allowing suspects to avoid the emotional environment of being incarcerated.
Primary Sentencing: This stage is a “means of enforcing certain restrictions on the liberty of an offender (Bottos, 2007, p. 3). This application lies at the core of home detention schemes, which seek to keep the offender confined to his or her place of residence during curfew hours (Bottos, 2007, p. 3). This application is ordered by the court system as a form of punishment. Electronic monitoring for this purpose is used in the United States. Society views this action to be a lenient for the offenders.
Post-trial Monitoring This stage is the “most common program used following a period of incarceration as a condition for early release (Bottos, 2007, p. 3). The objectives at this point are primarily re-integrative and rehabilitative in nature. Electronic monitoring provides “a gradual transition from completely externalized control over offender behavior while incarcerated. These programs seek to internalize a sense of personal account ability through the shaping techniques (Bottos, 2007, p. 4).
Issues Surrounding Electronic Monitoring In the United States electronic monitoring programs have widely increased. This increase has forced many organizations such as politicians, corrections workers, members of the judiciary system as well as others to view several important issues. Since 1980 many issues pertaining to legal related debates have moved to center stage. Many legal issues have become a concern as to the use of electronic monitoring.
Privacy:
In the early development issues was raised concerning the privacy of the offender. “Some have argued that electric monitoring technology introduces a situation in which an offender’s home is his prison” (Howard, 2000, p. 10). Other fears, which electronic monitoring results in is the offender’s movement and communication is monitored by the government (Howard, 2000, p. 10). Electronic monitoring programs are imposed with full consent of the offenders or participants.
Consent:
Consent is a major role in determining the legal acceptability of the electronic monitoring program. Participants consent must be without coercion and fully informed (Howard, 2000, .p 10). Participants must be fully informed of the program with clear explanation of the rules and restrictions.
Search and Seizure: Using the electronic monitoring system questions arise surrounding search and seizure. Many believe the use of electronic monitoring “constitutes unreasonable search and seizure” (Howard, 2000, p. 10). When an individual gives consent for the program waives certain rights so the offender has no rights to privacy however presently there are few legal problems being encountered (Howard, 2000, p. 10).
Equality under the Law: This issue is a problem because youths and the poor are discriminated against because the electronic monitoring program charges the offender a fee to be on the program. “The offender must have a court approved residence and a telephone to participate in the program” (Howard, 2000, p. 10). Offenders who lack the funding to pay the fees may be facing prison as the alternative. This causes issue with the offenders because they believe they should have the same chance as anyone else however these offenders do have the same choice but financial problems cause the issues.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Electronic monitoring is viewed as less restrictive and more humane compared to incarceration. The use of an electronic mentoring device is not viewed as a violation to cruel punishment standards. Electronic monitoring is a standard use for the courts in the correctional system (Howard, 2000, p. 11).
Designing and Applying Strategies The purpose of electronic monitoring programs is to supervise offenders placed on house arrest or how the courts sanctioned the offender. Many agencies are facing their own challenges and creating a quick response or program is not the answer for success. Programs need to have potential benefits for success and effectiveness. When designing a program the first step “is to specify its goals and applications” (Gassaway, 2013, p. 5). After the application is determined, the administrators can seek support for the new program. The administrators need to build flexibility into the program design (Gassaway, 2013, p. 5). Gaining support is a huge important factor when designing a program. The support needs to come from community corrections, criminal justice system, and the community. These support systems are the most important because “once judges are willing to sentence offenders to the electronic monitoring program then the program can be set up in a numerous of ways” (Gassaway, 2013, p. 8). Other support systems are financial as well as public. Financially the offenders are responsibly for the fees. This helps the staff and administrative part of the program. Political and community support is also needed because the public always have concerns regarding the offenders who are going to be placed on the electronic monitoring program (Gassaway, 2013, p. 9). Selecting offenders is another step for the electronic monitoring programs. The offender’s profiles will have a significant impact on program designs. Gaining information concerning the offenders profile will give insight into selection of the programs. Programs should have referrals to monitoring programs from outside sources however the referrals should be screened by using the risk assessment tool. Decision making should be from the assessment or at least have a potential in the decision because offenders with the desire to change or succeed should be placed on the programs first. Managing offenders is just as important as the designing process of the programs. The program must be explained to the offender. The explanation must be clear so the offender understands the rules and responsibilities he or she needs to follow. The offender must also understand the consequences of failure on the offender’s part. If the offender fails to comply with the rules and regulation of the program this action constitutes violations on the offender (Gassaway, 2013, p. 24). Success of electronic monitoring programs is because of the design of the program and application. Electronic monitoring programs have reported high success rates. The success of the programs seems to be linked tot eh screening of offenders as well as the staff. The computer output is received around the clock and this action can detect violations. Another issue regarding success is the cost and impact on the offender. The offender pays the fees for this device and this makes the offender defer from criminal activities. The criminogenic effects of jail seem to steer offenders from committing new crimes on the program. “Most programs are tailored to their communities; each has its own goals to fulfill. Each program must be evaluated in terms of its own state goals” (Gassaway, 2013, p. 32). Incarceration as well as “punishments are short-term solutions to a long-term problem, public safety will improve if decision-makers devise policies based or non-incarceration strategies such as positive reinforcement” (Ralph & Gable, 2005, p. 3). Observing offender criminal patterns often reveals a unique sequence of behaviors and intervening early is more effective than later (Ralph & Gable, 2005, p. 4). The critical success of electronic monitoring is rewarding good behavior before bad behavior has a chance to occur.
Summary
This research demonstrates technology has served the community corrections for decades. The information gathered from case studies, interviews, and surveys has provided much information as electronic monitoring being an effective alternation to incarceration. Many factors go into designing positive programs as well as enhancing positive outcomes on completion of the program. “Electronic supervision has potential to improve the community’s quality of life, save communities money and perhaps even save lives” (Anonymous, 2003, p. 3). Regardless of whether it saves money, reduces recidivism or reduces prison crowding, electronic monitoring will continue to evolve and is likely to remain a popular correctional alternative.
Annotated Bibliography
American Probation and parole Association (2013); Offenders Supervision with Electronic Technology: Community Corrections Resource, (2nd ed). Retrieved February 1, 2013 from: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/oset_2.pdf
This 244 page document was retrieved from the American Probation and Parole Association. Several chapters will provide valuable information regarding electronic monitoring. Chapter three for instance discusses evidence based practices, which is critical for the project. The purpose for evidence based practices is to provide efficient and effective responses to problems. The article goes on to discuss the eight principles of evidence based practices (p. 55). Chapter four discusses offenders such as sex offenders, domestic violence offenders, burglars and car thieves, high risk offenders, and low risk offenders. This section is important for the project explaining the population, which is being electronically monitored. Chapter two discusses electronic supervision tools such as GPS and remote alcohol monitoring. This document is believed to be valuable as well as informative. The information gathered can provide an outstanding explanation regarding electronic monitoring of offenders.
Anonymous (2003); Offenders Supervision with Electronic Technology; Corrections Forum 12(2), 70-74, Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/docview/214410829?accountid=27965 This article is a comprehensive report prepared by the American Probation and Parole Association. The information within this report is interesting. The article is broken down into sections from history to stakeholders to benefits to funding. This article can provide insight into some issues regarding electronic monitoring. Issues such as “there are no conclusive research studies or national guidelines that recommend consist criteria for including or excluding offenders in programs using electronic supervision” (p. 70). Many factors are presented in the article for consideration in the implementation or enhancement of electronic supervision.
Bottos, S. (2007); An Overview of Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: The Issues and Implications Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r/182/r182_eng.shtml
This article focuses on issues and implications regarding electronic monitoring in corrections. The detail information explains advantages as well as disadvantages of electronic monitoring programs. This article also goes into depth of a debate with the use of this technology. The debate consists of the effectiveness of electronic monitoring programs and factors, which may hinder the success of the electronic monitoring. This article also mentions types of electronic monitoring technology devices as well as applications. The information in the article can give insight for the project in many areas.
Bales, W., Mann, K., Blomberg, T., Gaes, G., Barrick, K., Dhungana, K., & McManus, B. (2010); A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring, Retrieved February 13, 2013 from: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu/edu/
This article is a qualitative and quantitative research article. The article provides data from both research methods on the topic of electronic monitoring. The data was taken from case studies, face-to-face interviews on medium to high-risk offenders. From the article quantitative analysis demonstrates that electronic monitoring reduces offender’s risk of failure by 31%. Global positioning system monitoring results in 6% fewer supervision failures compared tot eh radio frequency monitoring. The qualitative analysis demonstrates that the electronic monitoring goals and objectives are being met and reduces undesirable behavior however; the research shows negative consequences as well. The negative consequences are toward the offender’s families, employment opportunities and frequent loss of satellite signal, which result in unnecessary alerts.
BI Technology (2012); Offenders-Funded Electronic Monitoring Program Pays for Itself, Reduces Officers Caseload; BI Case Study Luzerne County Pennsylvania Retrieved February 20, 2013 from: http://bi.com/sites/all/themes/BI/pdf/casestudy/luzerne.pdf
This article refers to a county in the state of Pennsylvania. The county’s population is 320,000 living within 900 square miles. This county due to budget constraints was going to terminate the electronic monitoring program until the company of BI technology took on the responsibility of managing the program. This was the only solution for the community corrections agencies to oversee offenders. The results were effective with 100% cost-free to the correctional department and saved $4.5 million in bed cost for the Luzerne County Confinement Facility. The success rate in 2009 was 90%. The program reduced administrative caseload duties, probation officers to focus on ensuring offender compliance, making home visits and tending to court-related matters.
DeMichele, M. & Payne, B. (2009); Using Technology to Monitor Offenders: A Community Corrections Perspective. Corrections Today, 71(4) 34-37. Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/printviewfile.accountid=27965
This article will provide information understanding the concept of monitoring and defining technology itself. This article explains the growth of supervision as well as more tools used in the field, but also a wide variety of tools that only a few years ago did not exist. Different offenders different tools suggests not all offenders need electronic monitoring because offenders who have committed crimes that deserve to be addressed but who do not present any unique risk to society (p. 2). Many different practices are used to monitor offenders in the community including classifying offenders by risks, needs, and change levels.
Gassaway, T. (2013); Designing an Electronic Monitoring Program; A guide to program design, Implementation and management. Retrieved January 24, 2013 from: http://staatic.nicic.gov/Library/008745.pdf
This article provides case studies as well as overview on programs. This article is separated by sections with much information. Electronic monitoring programs have been developed by state and local criminal justice agencies across the nation. Programs discussed in the article are custody as probation, for pre-trail services, medical release, intensive supervision, and in various combinations of these uses. The article discusses specify goals and applications. Many other details within the article are important such as public support, system support, financial support as well as ethical and legal issues. The information gathered can provide insight into design strategeries for the project as well as from a mythology stand point.
Howard, J. (2001); Electronic Monitoring; John Howard Society of Alberta; The Reporter Vol 18, Number 1. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/newslet/may2001/May2001.pdf
This article gives a brief history of the electronic monitor. A Harvard psychologist, Robert Schwitzgelbel considered the device to be humane and inexpensive alternative to custody for many people involved in the justice system (p. 1). This article also explains many subtopics as programs, types of equipment, effectiveness, net-widening, the impact on the poor, cost, privacy, offender’s perspective, and the impact on the family. These subtopics provide limited information however give an individual some insight to the surrounding topic of electronic monitoring. According to Howard (2001) “there is no evidence to suggest that electronic monitoring is any more effective than any other correctional measure when combined with appropriate treatment and programming” (p. 3).
Howard, J. (2000); electronic Monitoring; John Howard Society of Alberta, Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/A3.htm
This article focuses on several issues regarding electronic monitoring. Howard explains the meaning of technology, which is also called tagging. Technology “allow justice personnel to quickly and easily confirm that an offender is at a specified location when he or she is required to be present” (p. 3). This article also explains issues surrounding electronic monitoring such as legal issues pertaining to privacy, consent, search and seizure, equality under the law as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The article provides an offenders perspective regarding the use of electronic monitoring. The information concerning legal issues is important for the research project of electronic monitoring.
Lilly, R. J. (2006); Issues Beyond Empirical Electronic Monitoring Reports; Criminology And Public Policy 5.1 Retrieved February 2, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/printviewfile?accountid=35812
This article is an empirical report on electronic monitoring programs in criminal justice system. Many issues are discussed such as electronic monitoring is now more clearly part of surveillance technology than before, it is more often than not the result of power politics instead of rational appraisal of evidence as to what works to reduce crime, electronic monitoring is part of the corrections commercial complex, and electronic monitoring vendors are more interested in profit than rehabilitation or reintegration of criminals into the community. These issues are researched and should critically inform public policy. The information in this article is interesting because the author states “EM was never really tested to determine whether it could deliver on its promises, In fact, it was hardly tried, its most frequent use was with relatively minor offenders” (p. 94). This article provides controversary on the use of the electronic monitor and with what offenders is it being used.
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (2005); Electronic Monitoring Should be Better Targeted on the Most Dangerous Offenders, Report No.05-19 Retrieved January 30, 2013 from: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0519rpt
This article explains in detail three types of electronic monitoring devices, radio frequency, active global positioning satellite (GPS), and Passive global positioning satellite (GPS). The report findings suggest the devices are not being used on the most dangerous offenders. The report states “ currently Florida law permits electronic monitoring to be used for two types of offenders, community control offenders and serious habitual and sex offenders” (p.2) however despite the seriousness of the habitual offender group, most of the electronic monitoring resources are being used on the community control population. In 2004, 705 offenders on electronic monitoring 70% were community control offenders, almost half of these offenders (43%) were convicted of a property, drug or other less serious crime. 30% of the offenders under electronic monitoring were habitual or sex offenders, who may pose a greater risk to the community.
Ralph, K. G., & Gable. R. S. (2005); Electronic Monitoring; Positive intervention strategies, Federal Probation, 69(1). 21-25, 49 Retrieved January 29, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/printviewfile?accountid=27965
This article provides interesting information regarding strategies. The information concerning evaluations of program effectiveness is detailed such as drug possession, DUI, petty theft, welfare or housing fraud or embezzlement. Intervention strategies according to Ralph & Gable (2005) is electronic monitoring should place public safety as a priority because incapacitation and punishment are short-term solutions to a long-term problem (p. 23). Community supervision officials should develop a system of graduated positive reinforcements that help to imprint pro-social behaviors and attitudes. Positive incentives such as verbal praise, reduction of fines, letters of commendations, carefully observation of an individual’s criminal pattern often reveals a unique sequence of preparatory behaviors (p. 24). This article can provide information and understanding on strategies of the use of electronic monitoring. The strategies should be a positive reinforcement.
Vollum, S. & Hale, C. (2002); Electronic Monitoring: A research review Corrections Compendium 27.7 Retrieved February 4, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/printviewfile?accountid=27965
This research review focuses on the efficient and effective alternation to incarceration. Discussion within the article consists of advantages as well as disadvantages. One advantage/disadvantage is cost effectiveness, According to the authors; advocates argue that electronic monitoring allows offenders who would otherwise be placed in prison to reside in their homes at a considerably lower cost (p. 2). The annual cost of house arrest with electronic monitoring ranges from $2,500 to $8,000 depending on the level of monitoring. It is estimated
that the annual cost for incarcerating an offender in a state prison was $20,000. On the other hand, Vollum & Hale discusses reasons electronic monitoring is not cost effective such as hidden costs, For instance; programs require around the clock monitoring, hiring additional personnel to track offenders, training, device care and maintence. (p. 3).
Reference:
American Probation and Parole Association (2013); Offenders Supervision with Electronic Technology: Community Corrections Resource, (2nd ed) Retrieved February 1, 2013 from: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/aset_2.pdf
Anonymous (2012); Offenders Supervision with Electronic Technology; Corrections Forum 12(2), 70-74, Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/docview/214410829?accountid=27965
Bales, W., Mann, K., Blomberg, T., Gaes, G., Barrick, K., Dhungana, K. & McManus, B. (2010) A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring Retrieved February 13, 2013 from: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu/edu/
BI Technology (2012); Offenders-Funded Electronic Monitoring Program Pays for Itself, Reduces Officer’s Caseload; BI Case Study Luzerne County Pennsylvania Retrieved February 20, 2013 from: http://bi.com/sites/all/themes/BI/pdf/casestudy/luzerne.pdf
Bottos, S. (2007); An Overview of Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: The Issues and Implications. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r/182/r182_eng.shtml
DeMichele, M. & Payne, B. (2009); Using Technology to Monitor Offenders: A Community Corrections Perspective. Corrections Today. 71(4) 34-37. Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/printviewfile.accountid=27965
Gassaway, Y. (2013); Designing an Electronic Monitoring Program: A Guide to Program Design, Implementation and Management. Retrieved January 24, 2013 from: http://staatic.nicic.gov/Library/008745.pdf
Howard, J. (2001); Electronic Monitoring; John Howard Society of Alberta The Reporter Vol 18, Number 1. retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/newslet/may2001/May2001.pdf
Howard, J. (2000); Electronic Monitoring; John Howard Society of Alberta. Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://johnhoward.ab.ca.pub/A3.htm
Lilly, R. (2006); Issues Beyond Empirical Electronic Monitoring Reports; Criminology and Public Policy 5.1 Retrieved February 2, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.comezproxy.apollolibrary.com/printviewfile?accountid=35812
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (2005); Electronic Monitoring Should be Better Targeted on the Most Dangerous Offenders, Report No. 05-19 Retrieved January 30, 2013 from: http://oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0519rpt
Ralph, K. G. & Gable, R. S. (2005); Electronic Monitoring; Positive Intervention Strategies Federal Probation, 69(1), 21-25, 49 Retrieved January 29, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/printviewfile?accountid=27965
Vollum, S. & Hale, C. (2002); Electronic Monitoring: A Research Review Correction Compendium 27.7 Retrieved February 4, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/printviewfile?accoountid=27965
Electronic Monitoring
Lisa Shade
PSF5371 Practices of Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections
March 15, 2013
Dr. Antonio Johnson
Abstract Electronic monitoring within the community corrections has been an alternative sentencing to incarceration since the 1990’s. Controvsary and debate over the use of this device has researchers compiled to show effectiveness. Through case studies, interviews, and surveys by offenders demonstrates the electronic monitoring program has positive outcomes and defers further criminal activates. The future of electronic monitoring programs surrounds the design and applications of effective programs for offenders. Electronic monitoring is going to be an effective tool, which community corrections sanction use because of the …show more content…
cost-effectiveness as well as the decrease in overcrowded prisons.
Table of Contents
Introduction 4
Background 4-6
Literature Review 6
Types of Electronic Monitoring Devices 7-8
Population 8-9
Advantages and Disadvantages 9-10
Methodology 10-13
Offenders Perspective 13-14
Programs and Applications 14-15
Issues Surrounding Electronic Monitoring 15-17
Designing and Applying Strategies 17-19
Summary 19
Annotated Bibliography 20-28
References 29-30
Electronic Monitoring
Introduction
The issues of electronic monitoring within community corrections have become a huge debate for two decades. The government has implemented electronic monitoring into the criminal justice system to help reduce crime, lower population within the prisons, and provide effectiveness. The research provides basic information surrounding the types of devices, history of electronic monitoring, types of research used for this project, evidence-based programs as well as strategies for future use.
Background
For several decades electronic monitoring has become a popular step within community corrections. “Electronic monitoring often is referred to as house arrest and serves to keep offenders in the community, and more important out of prison or jail while at the same time restricting their movements” (Vollum & Hale, 2002, p. 1). These devices have allowed the community corrections to monitor individuals to make sure they are not violating their restrictions. The electronic monitoring devices were not developed until the 1960s, by a psychologist, Robert Schwitzgebel. Schwitzgebel considered the device to be a humane and inexpensive alternative to custody for many people involved in the justice process (Howard, 2001, p. 1). An individual known as Judge Jack Love was viewing Spiderman comic books and saw a clip of a villain placing a device on Spiderman. This device was tracking Spiderman’s whereabouts. This gave Judge Love an idea to use this for offenders. In 1983 Judge Jack Love sentences the first offender to house arrest with the electronic monitoring device (Howard, 2001, p. 1). The use of the electronic monitoring within the community corrections system has grown rapidly as well as developed into one of the most popular electronic tools in community sanctions within the United States. A key concept with the background and history of electronic monitoring is the understanding of its use. Community corrections field has a huge position within the United States criminal justice system (DeMichele & Payne, 2009, p. 1). Prison or jail seems to occupy individuals through incarceration however “community correction agencies have always been mandated with achieving the dual role of providing mechanisms to motivate offenders behavioral change as well as restrictive mechanisms that incapacitate offenders through an assortment of conditions that suspend several civil liberties” (DeMichele & Payne, 2009, p. 1).
The Study The significance of this study is to show the evidence from both sides of the debate not only from societies stand point but also the offenders perspectives. This study is important to gain knowledge and understanding the concept of electronic monitoring of offenders as well as safety for the public. The experience of electronic monitoring on offenders leaves emotions or memories of the physical appearance, which the offenders have to face, not every offender is sentenced tot eh same conditions, therefore, providing the right sentencing with treatments may be what the community corrections needs to examine. The author of this particular research study aims to enlighten individuals the importance of this study.
The Problem Electronic monitoring is becoming a major tool in the criminal justice system. The “correctional population figures have grown steadily for the past thirty years” (DeMichele & Payne, 2009, p. 1). “Currently the community corrections field monitors more than five million adults and prisons or jails hold around 2.3 million adult” (DeMichele & Payne, 2009, p. 1). The United States is in a financial downfall and the community corrections field has to search for ways of improving efficiency as well as be effective. Electronic monitoring of offenders has society overwhelmed, fearful, and completing this study these questions will utilize the purpose:
1. Using electronic monitoring within community corrections, does this device have a positive effect on offenders?
2. What evidence from research can show positive outcomes of the devices being used within programs?
3. Are the devices being used for the right offenders?
4. What are the legal issues pertaining to electronic monitoring if any?
5. Are the electronic monitoring devices cost-effective in the long run?
Literature Review
Theoretical Framework The most startling theme to emerge from these articles is the extraordinarily prevalence of the controvsary with the use of electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring has become a part of the corrections complex even with the controvary among society. “In the United States only 826 offenders participated in electronic monitoring in 1987 (Howard, 2000, p. 3) however by 1998 over 95,000 offenders participated in the programs. Electronic monitoring is clearly a part of the community corrections however; electronic monitoring “is more often than not the result of power politics instead of rational appraisal of evidence as to what works to reduce crime” (Lilly, 2006, p. 1). The aspect of “electronic monitoring remains extraordinary understudied given what we know about the power and influence of privatization in criminal justice” (Lilly, 2006, p. 2).
Types of Electronic Monitoring Devices
Radio Frequency: Radio frequency was the first technological device used.
This device relies on radio frequency transmissions. The device was mostly used for imposing curfews for offenders. The device was usually put on the ankle of the individual and the receiver unit was connected to the offender’s home phone line. If for any reason the offender would stray to far from the receiver unit a signal would be transmitted to the monitoring center (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, 2005, p. 2).
Active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS): This device is more advanced than the radio frequency device. This device has been used since 1997. The device can be worn on the ankle or wrist but the offender has to carry the transmitter. This device uses the cell phone to transmit the signal to the monitoring center. The signal uses a global positioning satellite, which tracks the offender’s movement throughout the community. This technology allows probation officers to review the offender’s whereabouts as well as shows if the offenders enter a certain restricted area (OPPAGA, 2005, p.
2).
Passive Global Positioning Satellite (GPS): This device has many of the same features as the active global positioning satellite however this device does not report the offender’s real time action. This device does not show the offenders location. The device maintains a log of the offender’s locations through out the day but uses the telephone to transmit a report of the data collected for the day. The data is downloaded to the monitoring center for the probation office or correctional officers to review (OPPAGA, 2005, p. 2). These electronic monitoring devices are used for several individual populations.
Populations
Domestic Violence Offenders: Domestic violence offenders pose specific sets of risks and dangers to their victims and the communities in which they reside (American Probation and Parole Association, 2013, p. 227). These offenders cause serious physical and psychological trauma for their victims. Unfortunately these offenders are charged with misdemeanors and are supervised with electronic monitoring devices (APPA, 2013, p. 227). The victims fear for their safety because the offenders stalk and harass the victim after the abuse. The use of electronic monitoring in this case is to protect the victim.
Burglars and Car Thieves: These types of offenders need to be placed on electronic monitoring because their crimes are place-based (APPA, 2013, p. 228). These individuals commit the crimes at specific times and locations. Tracking the offenders can give insight into where the offenders have been and at what time (APPA, 2013, p. 228).
Sex Offenders/High-Risk Offenders: These offenders have society living in fear. “The general public as well as policymakers typically view sex offenders as a monolithic group, and community supervision officers are aware of the diversity of these offenders (APPA, 2013, p. 225). The crimes. Which sex offenders commit has a long lasting effect on the victims? These victims experienced trauma not only for themselves but also their families as well as the community, An important issue is the “media is quick to report the release of high-risk and potentially very dangerous sex offenders, which makes it more difficult for the community supervision officers to do their jobs” (APPA, 2013, p. 225). Sex offenders and high risk individuals need to be assessed on past criminal activities, past substance abuse, prior justice system experiences and any other charactertics which would provide insight into these behaviors (APPA, 2013, p. 228).
Advantages and Disadvantages Throughout the years many individuals such as researchers has debated over the use of electronic monitoring in the correctional system. The controvsary has become an issue of the effectiveness of the electronic monitoring programs. Technology is never fault free and issues do exist with the devices being used on offenders however does the advantages over rule the disadvantages? Given the debate of electronic monitoring in the community corrections system, technology has its downfalls but also has effectiveness.
Advantages:
According to Bottos (2007), the most salient and important advantages associated with electronic monitoring programs lie in their ability to aid probation and parole officers in monitoring as well as managing offenders behavior in the community (p. 4). Electronic monitoring provides a reliable basis of supervising control, which has the potential to reduce the offender’s likelihood of re-offending (Bottos, 2007, p. 4). Another effective use of the electronic monitoring system is through the criminal justice process. Electronic monitoring provides the offender the chance to serve a portion or the remainder time of the sentencing among the community. This action not only saves money but also decreases prison populations. Another advantage of this program is a major tool in offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration efforts (Bottos, 2007, p. 4). Offenders modify his or her anti social behavior, gradually shape, and internalization their behavioral control because the individual is constant under supervision. The electronic monitoring programs can also help to avoid the negative psychological effects associated with incarceration (Bottos, 2007, p. 4).
Disadvantages
Electronic monitoring has limitations, which cause disbelief toward the programs. The electronic monitoring equipment does not guarantee offenders to behave unlawfully or the correctional agencies will be able to intervene before a crime is committed. The equipment can only provide information, which it has been given such as where the offender is or has been. Another disadvantage is the device itself such as the capabilities of monitoring. These capabilities include technical faults, poor monitoring coverage, equipment failure, and uncomfortable devices (Bottos, 2007, p. 5). At the present no device is tamperproof. If an offender by chance gets the device removed the data or information will be lost. Another limitation is the electronic monitoring program of the “rehabilitative capacity of equipment in the absence of a program addressing offenders underlying criminal tendencies (Bottos, 2007, p. 4). The equipment can not pick up or signal the offender’s tendencies to commit another crime. Finally, the last limitation to the electronic monitoring program is the psychological effects. Offenders may experience emotional issues because of the devices these individual are required to wear. These devices are a constant reminder of the mistakes these individual have made and the consequences of their behavior. Individuals are reminded daily of being constantly monitored. Many offenders have issues with employment because most employers do not want to hire individuals with a criminal history or under restrict supervision. (Bottos, 2007, p. 4).
Methodology
Type of Research Method: The research method used for this study was mix method research, which is the combination of collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative approach was statistical tests to analysis research data to where the qualitative approach is non-judgmental approach to gain an understanding in questions from the subject’s point of view.
Data Collection: Different studies from articles as well as journals helped the author to understand the results of electronic monitoring within the community corrections, which was needed for this research study. The author also gathered data from case studies and interviews. The interviews consisted of questions, which the offenders openly discuss the experiences they had while in the electronic monitoring programs.
Case Study (Quantitative) Data was provided by the Florida Department of Corrections. The study was limited to medium to high risk offenders. This analysis, the electronic monitoring program was used as a treatment and not as a punishment. This study shows the electronic monitoring program reduces offender’s risk of failure by 31% at global positioning system (GPS) monitoring and results in 6% fewer supervision failures compared to the radio frequency (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 37). A score method was used to develop tests of the effect of the treatment as outcomes of offenders on different forms of community supervision (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p.41). The findings demonstrated the electronic monitoring program reduces offenders risk and the effect was reduced for violent offenders. Offenders of all groups and on different electronic monitoring forms in community corrections has benefited from these programs (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 54).
Case Study (Qualitative Analysis) The primary analysis was face-to-face interviews with offenders, officers, and administrators (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, BArrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 65). The information collected regarding the policies, practices, and processes of the electronic monitoring program as it utilized for the felony offenders living in the community was also used. Interviews were conducted over a two-day period in 2008. The interviews were approximately 45 minutes. The project consisted interviewing 161 offenders and 105 of these individuals were presently on the program (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 73). The findings from this analysis shows administrators reported electronic monitoring goals and objectives was being met, the electronic monitoring reduces undesirable behaviors, and electronic monitoring is used on approximately one-third of the cases. The negative aspect is the devices does cause consequences on the offenders families, employment opportunities, and these devices frequently lose the satellite signal resulting in numerous and unnecessary alerts (Bales, Mann, Blomberg, Gaes, Barrick, Dhungan & McManus, 2010, p. 63).
Case Study of Luzerne County Pennsylvania: Luzerne County, Pennsylvania has 320,000 residents living within a 900 square miles. In 1998 the county was going to terminate the electronic monitoring program because of budget constraints and rising departmental cost (BI Technology, 2012, p. 1). BI Technology took over the responsibility for handling electronic monitoring. This company handles all duties from case management to intake assessment to fees and schedules. BI is monitoring between 140 to 160 offenders daily. The cost of the program for the participants is $12.95 daily at the expense of the offenders. The results of the program has shown a pro-active, community-based offenders monitoring program and close to 100% cost free to the correctional department. In 2009, the program saved $$.5 million bed cost, which saved 53,000 offenders incarceration days (BI Technology, 2012, p. 1). BI Technology managing the electronic monitoring has provided reduced administrative caseload duties, probation officers could focus on ensuring offender compliance, making home visits and tending court-related matters. This program restrained a successful completion rate and delivers strict accountability (BI Technology, 2012, p. 1).
Offenders Perspectives
Central District of California and Southern District Florida: In 1990, a study was conducted on electronic monitoring offenders and 45 federal sentenced paroles were interviewed to gain understanding from their perspective. Majority of the individuals interviewed stated the stressful part of the program was the restricted time (Howard, 2000, p. 8). Some found getting home from work because of traffic became an issue. The 45 individuals believed the electronic monitoring program is preferable because they can be home with family, which was a positive outcome for them.
Los Angeles Survey: In the Los Angeles area, a survey was conducted pertaining to attitude and personal benefits of the electronic monitoring program. 186 offenders were consulted for the survey. “74% of the individuals thought their sentence was fair while less than 9% thought their sentence was unfair, and 20% felt their sentence was too long however 2 offenders said their sentence should have been longer” (Howard, 2000, p. 8). The outcome of this survey showed 70% of the offenders on the program were less likely to commit another crime. After completion of the program 75% of the offenders said behaviors changed (Howard, 2000, p. 8).
British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan: In 1999, a study was conducted in parts of British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan. Only a minority of the offenders participating in the survey stated the program was difficult. 95% of the offenders stated one personal benefit was the ability to maintain close contact with family members (Howard, 2000, p. 9). The program also allowed these offenders to participate and maintain employment, care for their children as well as attend treatment programs. The positive percentage participating in the programs with positive outcomes was British Columbia at 86%, Newfoundland offenders at 89%, and Saskatchewan at 79% (Howard, 2000, p. 9).
Programs and Applications Electronic monitoring has emerged into the community corrections and was sanctioned for a variety of individuals. Electronic monitoring has been issued worldwide however the way community corrections apply these devices vary among offenders. Many factors are considered when offenders are sanctioned to electronic monitoring. The individuals risk level is the most important. Electronic monitoring is generally used either by itself or in conjunction with other forms of monitoring (Bottos, 2007, p. 3). The primary objective of these programs and electronic monitoring is to control offenders risk and ensure public safety (Bottos, 2007, p. 3).
Pre-Trial Stage: This stage is used by an offender as a condition of being granted bail. Using the electronic monitoring at this stage gives the offender options of returning home with family until his or her trial date. Monitoring an offender helps watch the individual from becoming a flight risk. According to Bottos (2007), this option has benefits as being cost-effective relative to incarceration and allowing suspects to avoid the emotional environment of being incarcerated.
Primary Sentencing: This stage is a “means of enforcing certain restrictions on the liberty of an offender (Bottos, 2007, p. 3). This application lies at the core of home detention schemes, which seek to keep the offender confined to his or her place of residence during curfew hours (Bottos, 2007, p. 3). This application is ordered by the court system as a form of punishment. Electronic monitoring for this purpose is used in the United States. Society views this action to be a lenient for the offenders.
Post-trial Monitoring This stage is the “most common program used following a period of incarceration as a condition for early release (Bottos, 2007, p. 3). The objectives at this point are primarily re-integrative and rehabilitative in nature. Electronic monitoring provides “a gradual transition from completely externalized control over offender behavior while incarcerated. These programs seek to internalize a sense of personal account ability through the shaping techniques (Bottos, 2007, p. 4).
Issues Surrounding Electronic Monitoring In the United States electronic monitoring programs have widely increased. This increase has forced many organizations such as politicians, corrections workers, members of the judiciary system as well as others to view several important issues. Since 1980 many issues pertaining to legal related debates have moved to center stage. Many legal issues have become a concern as to the use of electronic monitoring.
Privacy:
In the early development issues was raised concerning the privacy of the offender. “Some have argued that electric monitoring technology introduces a situation in which an offender’s home is his prison” (Howard, 2000, p. 10). Other fears, which electronic monitoring results in is the offender’s movement and communication is monitored by the government (Howard, 2000, p. 10). Electronic monitoring programs are imposed with full consent of the offenders or participants.
Consent:
Consent is a major role in determining the legal acceptability of the electronic monitoring program. Participants consent must be without coercion and fully informed (Howard, 2000, .p 10). Participants must be fully informed of the program with clear explanation of the rules and restrictions.
Search and Seizure: Using the electronic monitoring system questions arise surrounding search and seizure. Many believe the use of electronic monitoring “constitutes unreasonable search and seizure” (Howard, 2000, p. 10). When an individual gives consent for the program waives certain rights so the offender has no rights to privacy however presently there are few legal problems being encountered (Howard, 2000, p. 10).
Equality under the Law: This issue is a problem because youths and the poor are discriminated against because the electronic monitoring program charges the offender a fee to be on the program. “The offender must have a court approved residence and a telephone to participate in the program” (Howard, 2000, p. 10). Offenders who lack the funding to pay the fees may be facing prison as the alternative. This causes issue with the offenders because they believe they should have the same chance as anyone else however these offenders do have the same choice but financial problems cause the issues.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Electronic monitoring is viewed as less restrictive and more humane compared to incarceration. The use of an electronic mentoring device is not viewed as a violation to cruel punishment standards. Electronic monitoring is a standard use for the courts in the correctional system (Howard, 2000, p. 11).
Designing and Applying Strategies The purpose of electronic monitoring programs is to supervise offenders placed on house arrest or how the courts sanctioned the offender. Many agencies are facing their own challenges and creating a quick response or program is not the answer for success. Programs need to have potential benefits for success and effectiveness. When designing a program the first step “is to specify its goals and applications” (Gassaway, 2013, p. 5). After the application is determined, the administrators can seek support for the new program. The administrators need to build flexibility into the program design (Gassaway, 2013, p. 5). Gaining support is a huge important factor when designing a program. The support needs to come from community corrections, criminal justice system, and the community. These support systems are the most important because “once judges are willing to sentence offenders to the electronic monitoring program then the program can be set up in a numerous of ways” (Gassaway, 2013, p. 8). Other support systems are financial as well as public. Financially the offenders are responsibly for the fees. This helps the staff and administrative part of the program. Political and community support is also needed because the public always have concerns regarding the offenders who are going to be placed on the electronic monitoring program (Gassaway, 2013, p. 9). Selecting offenders is another step for the electronic monitoring programs. The offender’s profiles will have a significant impact on program designs. Gaining information concerning the offenders profile will give insight into selection of the programs. Programs should have referrals to monitoring programs from outside sources however the referrals should be screened by using the risk assessment tool. Decision making should be from the assessment or at least have a potential in the decision because offenders with the desire to change or succeed should be placed on the programs first. Managing offenders is just as important as the designing process of the programs. The program must be explained to the offender. The explanation must be clear so the offender understands the rules and responsibilities he or she needs to follow. The offender must also understand the consequences of failure on the offender’s part. If the offender fails to comply with the rules and regulation of the program this action constitutes violations on the offender (Gassaway, 2013, p. 24). Success of electronic monitoring programs is because of the design of the program and application. Electronic monitoring programs have reported high success rates. The success of the programs seems to be linked tot eh screening of offenders as well as the staff. The computer output is received around the clock and this action can detect violations. Another issue regarding success is the cost and impact on the offender. The offender pays the fees for this device and this makes the offender defer from criminal activities. The criminogenic effects of jail seem to steer offenders from committing new crimes on the program. “Most programs are tailored to their communities; each has its own goals to fulfill. Each program must be evaluated in terms of its own state goals” (Gassaway, 2013, p. 32). Incarceration as well as “punishments are short-term solutions to a long-term problem, public safety will improve if decision-makers devise policies based or non-incarceration strategies such as positive reinforcement” (Ralph & Gable, 2005, p. 3). Observing offender criminal patterns often reveals a unique sequence of behaviors and intervening early is more effective than later (Ralph & Gable, 2005, p. 4). The critical success of electronic monitoring is rewarding good behavior before bad behavior has a chance to occur.
Summary
This research demonstrates technology has served the community corrections for decades. The information gathered from case studies, interviews, and surveys has provided much information as electronic monitoring being an effective alternation to incarceration. Many factors go into designing positive programs as well as enhancing positive outcomes on completion of the program. “Electronic supervision has potential to improve the community’s quality of life, save communities money and perhaps even save lives” (Anonymous, 2003, p. 3). Regardless of whether it saves money, reduces recidivism or reduces prison crowding, electronic monitoring will continue to evolve and is likely to remain a popular correctional alternative.
Annotated Bibliography
American Probation and parole Association (2013); Offenders Supervision with Electronic Technology: Community Corrections Resource, (2nd ed). Retrieved February 1, 2013 from: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/oset_2.pdf
This 244 page document was retrieved from the American Probation and Parole Association. Several chapters will provide valuable information regarding electronic monitoring. Chapter three for instance discusses evidence based practices, which is critical for the project. The purpose for evidence based practices is to provide efficient and effective responses to problems. The article goes on to discuss the eight principles of evidence based practices (p. 55). Chapter four discusses offenders such as sex offenders, domestic violence offenders, burglars and car thieves, high risk offenders, and low risk offenders. This section is important for the project explaining the population, which is being electronically monitored. Chapter two discusses electronic supervision tools such as GPS and remote alcohol monitoring. This document is believed to be valuable as well as informative. The information gathered can provide an outstanding explanation regarding electronic monitoring of offenders.
Anonymous (2003); Offenders Supervision with Electronic Technology; Corrections Forum 12(2), 70-74, Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/docview/214410829?accountid=27965 This article is a comprehensive report prepared by the American Probation and Parole Association. The information within this report is interesting. The article is broken down into sections from history to stakeholders to benefits to funding. This article can provide insight into some issues regarding electronic monitoring. Issues such as “there are no conclusive research studies or national guidelines that recommend consist criteria for including or excluding offenders in programs using electronic supervision” (p. 70). Many factors are presented in the article for consideration in the implementation or enhancement of electronic supervision.
Bottos, S. (2007); An Overview of Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: The Issues and Implications Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r/182/r182_eng.shtml
This article focuses on issues and implications regarding electronic monitoring in corrections. The detail information explains advantages as well as disadvantages of electronic monitoring programs. This article also goes into depth of a debate with the use of this technology. The debate consists of the effectiveness of electronic monitoring programs and factors, which may hinder the success of the electronic monitoring. This article also mentions types of electronic monitoring technology devices as well as applications. The information in the article can give insight for the project in many areas.
Bales, W., Mann, K., Blomberg, T., Gaes, G., Barrick, K., Dhungana, K., & McManus, B. (2010); A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring, Retrieved February 13, 2013 from: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu/edu/
This article is a qualitative and quantitative research article. The article provides data from both research methods on the topic of electronic monitoring. The data was taken from case studies, face-to-face interviews on medium to high-risk offenders. From the article quantitative analysis demonstrates that electronic monitoring reduces offender’s risk of failure by 31%. Global positioning system monitoring results in 6% fewer supervision failures compared tot eh radio frequency monitoring. The qualitative analysis demonstrates that the electronic monitoring goals and objectives are being met and reduces undesirable behavior however; the research shows negative consequences as well. The negative consequences are toward the offender’s families, employment opportunities and frequent loss of satellite signal, which result in unnecessary alerts.
BI Technology (2012); Offenders-Funded Electronic Monitoring Program Pays for Itself, Reduces Officers Caseload; BI Case Study Luzerne County Pennsylvania Retrieved February 20, 2013 from: http://bi.com/sites/all/themes/BI/pdf/casestudy/luzerne.pdf
This article refers to a county in the state of Pennsylvania. The county’s population is 320,000 living within 900 square miles. This county due to budget constraints was going to terminate the electronic monitoring program until the company of BI technology took on the responsibility of managing the program. This was the only solution for the community corrections agencies to oversee offenders. The results were effective with 100% cost-free to the correctional department and saved $4.5 million in bed cost for the Luzerne County Confinement Facility. The success rate in 2009 was 90%. The program reduced administrative caseload duties, probation officers to focus on ensuring offender compliance, making home visits and tending to court-related matters.
DeMichele, M. & Payne, B. (2009); Using Technology to Monitor Offenders: A Community Corrections Perspective. Corrections Today, 71(4) 34-37. Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/printviewfile.accountid=27965
This article will provide information understanding the concept of monitoring and defining technology itself. This article explains the growth of supervision as well as more tools used in the field, but also a wide variety of tools that only a few years ago did not exist. Different offenders different tools suggests not all offenders need electronic monitoring because offenders who have committed crimes that deserve to be addressed but who do not present any unique risk to society (p. 2). Many different practices are used to monitor offenders in the community including classifying offenders by risks, needs, and change levels.
Gassaway, T. (2013); Designing an Electronic Monitoring Program; A guide to program design, Implementation and management. Retrieved January 24, 2013 from: http://staatic.nicic.gov/Library/008745.pdf
This article provides case studies as well as overview on programs. This article is separated by sections with much information. Electronic monitoring programs have been developed by state and local criminal justice agencies across the nation. Programs discussed in the article are custody as probation, for pre-trail services, medical release, intensive supervision, and in various combinations of these uses. The article discusses specify goals and applications. Many other details within the article are important such as public support, system support, financial support as well as ethical and legal issues. The information gathered can provide insight into design strategeries for the project as well as from a mythology stand point.
Howard, J. (2001); Electronic Monitoring; John Howard Society of Alberta; The Reporter Vol 18, Number 1. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/newslet/may2001/May2001.pdf
This article gives a brief history of the electronic monitor. A Harvard psychologist, Robert Schwitzgelbel considered the device to be humane and inexpensive alternative to custody for many people involved in the justice system (p. 1). This article also explains many subtopics as programs, types of equipment, effectiveness, net-widening, the impact on the poor, cost, privacy, offender’s perspective, and the impact on the family. These subtopics provide limited information however give an individual some insight to the surrounding topic of electronic monitoring. According to Howard (2001) “there is no evidence to suggest that electronic monitoring is any more effective than any other correctional measure when combined with appropriate treatment and programming” (p. 3).
Howard, J. (2000); electronic Monitoring; John Howard Society of Alberta, Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/A3.htm
This article focuses on several issues regarding electronic monitoring. Howard explains the meaning of technology, which is also called tagging. Technology “allow justice personnel to quickly and easily confirm that an offender is at a specified location when he or she is required to be present” (p. 3). This article also explains issues surrounding electronic monitoring such as legal issues pertaining to privacy, consent, search and seizure, equality under the law as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The article provides an offenders perspective regarding the use of electronic monitoring. The information concerning legal issues is important for the research project of electronic monitoring.
Lilly, R. J. (2006); Issues Beyond Empirical Electronic Monitoring Reports; Criminology And Public Policy 5.1 Retrieved February 2, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/printviewfile?accountid=35812
This article is an empirical report on electronic monitoring programs in criminal justice system. Many issues are discussed such as electronic monitoring is now more clearly part of surveillance technology than before, it is more often than not the result of power politics instead of rational appraisal of evidence as to what works to reduce crime, electronic monitoring is part of the corrections commercial complex, and electronic monitoring vendors are more interested in profit than rehabilitation or reintegration of criminals into the community. These issues are researched and should critically inform public policy. The information in this article is interesting because the author states “EM was never really tested to determine whether it could deliver on its promises, In fact, it was hardly tried, its most frequent use was with relatively minor offenders” (p. 94). This article provides controversary on the use of the electronic monitor and with what offenders is it being used.
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (2005); Electronic Monitoring Should be Better Targeted on the Most Dangerous Offenders, Report No.05-19 Retrieved January 30, 2013 from: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0519rpt
This article explains in detail three types of electronic monitoring devices, radio frequency, active global positioning satellite (GPS), and Passive global positioning satellite (GPS). The report findings suggest the devices are not being used on the most dangerous offenders. The report states “ currently Florida law permits electronic monitoring to be used for two types of offenders, community control offenders and serious habitual and sex offenders” (p.2) however despite the seriousness of the habitual offender group, most of the electronic monitoring resources are being used on the community control population. In 2004, 705 offenders on electronic monitoring 70% were community control offenders, almost half of these offenders (43%) were convicted of a property, drug or other less serious crime. 30% of the offenders under electronic monitoring were habitual or sex offenders, who may pose a greater risk to the community.
Ralph, K. G., & Gable. R. S. (2005); Electronic Monitoring; Positive intervention strategies, Federal Probation, 69(1). 21-25, 49 Retrieved January 29, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/printviewfile?accountid=27965
This article provides interesting information regarding strategies. The information concerning evaluations of program effectiveness is detailed such as drug possession, DUI, petty theft, welfare or housing fraud or embezzlement. Intervention strategies according to Ralph & Gable (2005) is electronic monitoring should place public safety as a priority because incapacitation and punishment are short-term solutions to a long-term problem (p. 23). Community supervision officials should develop a system of graduated positive reinforcements that help to imprint pro-social behaviors and attitudes. Positive incentives such as verbal praise, reduction of fines, letters of commendations, carefully observation of an individual’s criminal pattern often reveals a unique sequence of preparatory behaviors (p. 24). This article can provide information and understanding on strategies of the use of electronic monitoring. The strategies should be a positive reinforcement.
Vollum, S. & Hale, C. (2002); Electronic Monitoring: A research review Corrections Compendium 27.7 Retrieved February 4, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/printviewfile?accountid=27965
This research review focuses on the efficient and effective alternation to incarceration. Discussion within the article consists of advantages as well as disadvantages. One advantage/disadvantage is cost effectiveness, According to the authors; advocates argue that electronic monitoring allows offenders who would otherwise be placed in prison to reside in their homes at a considerably lower cost (p. 2). The annual cost of house arrest with electronic monitoring ranges from $2,500 to $8,000 depending on the level of monitoring. It is estimated
that the annual cost for incarcerating an offender in a state prison was $20,000. On the other hand, Vollum & Hale discusses reasons electronic monitoring is not cost effective such as hidden costs, For instance; programs require around the clock monitoring, hiring additional personnel to track offenders, training, device care and maintence. (p. 3).
Reference:
American Probation and Parole Association (2013); Offenders Supervision with Electronic Technology: Community Corrections Resource, (2nd ed) Retrieved February 1, 2013 from: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/aset_2.pdf
Anonymous (2012); Offenders Supervision with Electronic Technology; Corrections Forum 12(2), 70-74, Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/docview/214410829?accountid=27965
Bales, W., Mann, K., Blomberg, T., Gaes, G., Barrick, K., Dhungana, K. & McManus, B. (2010) A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring Retrieved February 13, 2013 from: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu/edu/
BI Technology (2012); Offenders-Funded Electronic Monitoring Program Pays for Itself, Reduces Officer’s Caseload; BI Case Study Luzerne County Pennsylvania Retrieved February 20, 2013 from: http://bi.com/sites/all/themes/BI/pdf/casestudy/luzerne.pdf
Bottos, S. (2007); An Overview of Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: The Issues and Implications. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r/182/r182_eng.shtml
DeMichele, M. & Payne, B. (2009); Using Technology to Monitor Offenders: A Community Corrections Perspective. Corrections Today. 71(4) 34-37. Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/printviewfile.accountid=27965
Gassaway, Y. (2013); Designing an Electronic Monitoring Program: A Guide to Program Design, Implementation and Management. Retrieved January 24, 2013 from: http://staatic.nicic.gov/Library/008745.pdf
Howard, J. (2001); Electronic Monitoring; John Howard Society of Alberta The Reporter Vol 18, Number 1. retrieved January 16, 2013 from: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/newslet/may2001/May2001.pdf
Howard, J. (2000); Electronic Monitoring; John Howard Society of Alberta. Retrieved January 18, 2013 from: http://johnhoward.ab.ca.pub/A3.htm
Lilly, R. (2006); Issues Beyond Empirical Electronic Monitoring Reports; Criminology and Public Policy 5.1 Retrieved February 2, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.comezproxy.apollolibrary.com/printviewfile?accountid=35812
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (2005); Electronic Monitoring Should be Better Targeted on the Most Dangerous Offenders, Report No. 05-19 Retrieved January 30, 2013 from: http://oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0519rpt
Ralph, K. G. & Gable, R. S. (2005); Electronic Monitoring; Positive Intervention Strategies Federal Probation, 69(1), 21-25, 49 Retrieved January 29, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/printviewfile?accountid=27965
Vollum, S. & Hale, C. (2002); Electronic Monitoring: A Research Review Correction Compendium 27.7 Retrieved February 4, 2013 from: http://search.proquest.com/library.capella.edu/printviewfile?accoountid=27965