Performance Audit of the Use of Electronic Monitoring Within the Community Control Program Administered by the Department of Corrections

• NCJ Number: 151516
• Author(s): S L Lipner
• Date Published: 1993
• Length: 56 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; Florida Office of the Auditor General; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This audit reviewed the use of electronic monitoring to supervise certain offenders placed in the Community Control Program by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC).

Abstract

The Community Control Program provides offenders with a form of intensive, supervised custody in the community. Electronic monitoring uses devices connected to the offender's telephone and secured to an ankle or wrist that enable the DOC to monitor whether the offender is present at his or her residence. The system most commonly used by the DOC involves a continuous signal transmitted from the offender's anklet to a receiving device on the telephone. While the DOC spent over $1.4 million on electronic monitoring services in 1991 and 1992, no evaluations were conducted to assess the effectiveness of electronic monitoring. The DOC did not maintain information on electronically monitored offenders or determine staffing requirements for electronic monitoring that would facilitate the evaluation process. Between 1983 and 1987, during the implementation of electronic monitoring supervision, the DOC conducted several pilot studies to test the feasibility of using electronic monitoring equipment. These studies recommended the use of electronic monitoring but also indicated the necessity of continued evaluations. A 1988 DOC study found that the operation and management of electronic monitoring supervision is complicated and labor-intensive and that electronic monitoring increases rather than decreases the workload of community control officers. The DOC needs to collect data on violations detected through electronic monitoring and on outcomes of offenders supervised with electronic monitoring. Recommendations are offered to facilitate the administrative use of electronic monitoring and to determine whether electronic monitoring enhances offender supervision. Appendixes provide supplemental information on the audit methodology and DOC's response to the audit. 20 references, 8 references, 2 tables, and 3 exhibits