NCJ Number
168209
Journal
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Volume: 24 Issue: 3/4 Dated: (1997) Pages: 35-51
Date Published
1997
Length
17 pages
Annotation
The first 57 offenders who took part in a Pennsylvania program of house arrest with electronic monitoring were compared with a group not involved in electronic monitoring to determine the program's impacts.
Abstract
The "Western" County Probation Department implemented the program in the fall of 1992. The offenders studied were all convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). Those The Pennsylvania mandatory DUI Act provided an opportunity to study two similar groups, one of was involved in treatment/counseling but not electronic monitoring. Results revealed that the main difference between the two groups was that one group went to jail while the other service the sentence under house arrest with electronic monitoring. Descriptive and inferential statistics revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to rearrest, revocations, and technical violations resulting in the filing of detainers. In addition, the overwhelming majority of offenders under electronic monitoring were able to complete their period of supervision without incident; this result addressed the arguments that such programs unduly jeopardize community safety. Findings indicate that house arrest with electronic monitoring can be an effective alternative to jail for many drunk driving offenders. Tables and 19 references (Author abstract modified)