A comparative analysis of three electronically monitored home detention programs

Abstract

During the 1980s correctional officials focused considerable energy on the development of intermediate sanctions as alternatives to incarceration. One such alternative is electronically monitored home detention. Although the electronic monitoring equipment was not commercially available until late in 1984, programs were operating in all 50 states by 1990. This study presents a comparative analysis of three electronic monitoring programs: a program for adults charged with a criminal offense and unable to obtain pretrial release; a program designed as an alternative to incarceration for convicted adult offenders; and a program for adjudicated juvenile burglars. Each program operated in the same jurisdiction, used essentially the same equipment, and imposed similar rules and restrictions on behavior. The analysis focuses on comparisons of program delivery, clients' performance, and programmatic sources of variation. The implications of the findings for future program development and evaluation are discussed. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, held in Baltimore in November 1990. This research was supported in part by Grants 86-IJ-CX-0041, 88-IJ-CX-0052, and 89-IJ-CX-0025 from the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Justice. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, held in Baltimore in November 1990. This research was supported in part by Grants 86-IJ-CX-0041, 88-IJ-CX-0052, and 89-IJ-CX-0025 from the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Justice. Notes This is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, held in Baltimore in November 1990. This research was supported in part by Grants 86-IJ-CX-0041, 88-IJ-CX-0052, and 89-IJ-CX-0025 from the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Justice.