Electronic Monitoring

• NCJ Number: 128223
• Author(s): M Haimes; B Owen; D Clark; A Schmidt
• Date Published: 1988
• Length: 2 pages
• Corporate Author: US Dept of Justice
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Topics in Corrections

Annotation

Expanding prison populations have stimulated the development of alternative sanction options such as electronic monitoring.

Abstract

An electronic monitoring program combines intensive supervision in the community with a device to verify that offenders are at designated locations during specified time periods. With continuously signaling devices, offenders wear a transmitter that emits a signal over a range of 100 to 200 feet. The signal is received by a receiver dialer that is installed at the monitored location. The dialer notifies the central computer of a change in the offender's status. With programmed contact devices, a computer contacts offenders to insure they are at the monitored location and verifies that the person responding is actually the offender being monitored. Hybrid equipment combines the preceding two types of devices and functions similarly to continuous signaling devices. Hybrid equipment, however, performs like a programmed contact device when it notes an offender has departed at an unauthorized time. A major concern with electronic monitoring is the possibility that an offender will commit further crimes despite the presence of the monitoring device. Another key concern is the public's view of electronic monitoring and whether it is perceived as sufficiently punitive. A national survey indicates that 2,500 offenders were being electronically monitored and whether it is perceived as sufficiently punitive. A national survey indicates that 2,500 offenders were being electronically monitored in 32 States in 1988. The typical offender was a sentenced male under 30 years of age. Electronic monitoring costs are lower than for local jails, local detention centers, and State prisons, but are higher than for routine probation, intensive probation, and house arrest. The need for research on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring is noted as well as the community concerns for safety and retribution that play a part in the selection of electronic monitoring equipment.