Manual and Electronic House Arrest: An Evaluation of Factors Related to Failure (From Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s, P 37-56, 1995, John Ortiz Smykla and William L Selke, eds. -- See NCJ-167581)

• NCJ Number: 167584
• Author(s): M P Brown; S Roy
• Date Published: 1995
• Length: 20 pages
• Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This study was designed to determine whether level of supervision is related to program failure in manual and continuously monitoring electronic house arrest programs, as well as to examine the factors related to failure within each program.

Abstract

The programs studied are operated by the Oneida County Probation Department in Utica, N.Y. The manual supervision program operated from December 16, 1985, through December 6, 1987. On December 7, 1987, the manual supervision program was replaced by an electronic supervision program. The manual program relied on random telephone contacts and unannounced home visits by probation officers. The continuously monitoring program determines when and for how long program participants leave their residences through the use of electronic monitoring equipment. Data were collected from New York State alternative programs case monitoring forms. The manual supervision sample consisted of all persons sentenced to the program from December 16, 1985, through December 6, 1987 (n=139). The electronic supervision sample was composed of all persons sentenced to the program from December 7, 1987, through December 31, 1990 (n=392). Program failure was defined as a violation of the conditions of the program. The independent variables were individual characteristics (gender, race, and age); social characteristics (marital status, employment status, and living arrangement); case characteristics (prior convictions and current offense); and a program characteristic (days sentenced to the programs). The analysis showed that social characteristics variables were the strongest predictors of failure in the manual supervision program; conversely, they were the least predictive of failure in the electronic supervision program. This finding suggests that the level of supervision in the manual program was insufficient to control the behavior of those with weak or no social bonds. The best predictors of failure in the electronic supervision program were an offender's case characteristics. For high-risk offenders, electronic monitoring apparently provides the supervision necessary to control behavior; however, for sentences extending to 270 days, it may be necessary to reaffirm the psychological and physical presence of the monitoring device. 10 tables