Electronic Monitoring (EM) and Community Safety
Issue
In the past, one of the criticisms leveled at EM is that it prematurely allows criminals out on the street to re-offend. To the contrary, EM and its related technologies actually improve safety through decreased recidivism, higher awareness of potential offenders' whereabouts and new approaches to crime prevention.
Background - Recidivism and Public Safety
Does EM make a difference in public safety? The following data indicates that EM increases public safety by reducing the number of violations.
Cook County, Illinois (Illinois Criminal Justice 1995)
Re-arrest rate of released pre-trial clients while on EM was 4%, compared to 14% for those not participating in the EM program.Florida (National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief, Gowdy, V. 1993)
Re-arrest rate of drug offenders for new offense convictions over 18 months in duration: with EM - 11%, without EM - 27%.Los Angeles County (EM offenders on probation, Judicature, 76, Glaser, Watts 1992)
Revocation of probation among offenders due to serious violation was 34% for those on EM, versus 43% for those on probation only.US FED (US DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1996, Programs for DWI offenders)
Research for the US Department of Transportation found that EM was effective in reducing the recidivism rate of repeat DWI (driving while impaired) offenders by about one-third. The three-year study recommends EM to reduce pressure on jails and increase traffic safety.United States (National Institute of Justice Journal, Probation in the US, Petersilia, 1997)
When offenders received both surveillance (EM) and Treatment (Programming) combined recidivism declined by 20 to 30%.
Increased Awareness through EM
According to Statistics Canada, the number of BC offenders on Community Supervision in 97-98 was 21,938. This includes Probation, Provincial Parole, Bail and Conditional Sentences. Of these "clients" only a very small percentage were monitored electronically.
One solution to reduce crime and increase public safety would be to use a cascading combination of Voice Verification, Electronic Monitoring and Tracking to monitor these clients. If utilized in combination with programming, studies show that BC could potentially reduce crimes committed by this type of offender by as much as 30%.
New EM Technologies used in the fight against Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence continues to be one of the most problematic issues for BC's police force and justice system. New full time tracking technology systems provide a method for monitoring perpetrators of domestic violence who are under "Protective and/or Restraining Orders." These types of systems are an excellent way of monitoring a perpetrator's compliance with these court orders and to aid the court in determining when they are violated. With this information, the courts can enforce protective orders and attach consequences to a perpetrator's behavior.
Under this system, a perpetrator is assigned inclusion zones where they must stay always or during certain hours and exclusion zones where they may never enter or only enter at specific hours. These exclusion zones which surround the victim can be adjusted to meet local conditions, town size etc on a case-by-case basis. The perpetrator wears a transmitter, which is continuously tracked by computer, and officers are alerted if preset limits are exceeded.
Unfortunately many programs that surround domestic violence today put the onus on the victim to report on their partner, rather than where it belongs, on the perpetrator. In combination with treatment programs, this system represents a major advancement in the fight against domestic violence.
Testimonials
Electronic monitoring is accepted and well thought of by the public, community based program administrators, judges and offenders.
Comments from the public at large:
In a June 1999 MarkTrend Research survey on EM, when asked about their impressions with regard to EM safety, over 80% of the 503 respondents reported a "very" or "somewhat" positive impression.
Comments from EM Program Administers:
Home Confinement,
(Federal Probation, Volume 61 Number 1, March 1997)
"Home confinement, with the proper level of accountability, can satisfy the public's sense of justice. It is a program that promotes participant accountability, enhances public safety, (changes) tax burdens into taxpayers, and offers an alternative to costly prison confinement."EM in the Southern District of Mississippi,
(Federal Probation, March 1995)
"We began our first year of electronic monitoring with limited expectations about its use … As the year went along, we began accepting much higher risk cases with excellent results-not the catastrophes we first imagined. Common perceptions about electronic monitoring held by our staff, as well as judges in our district, have changed tremendously. What was initially viewed as a limited alternative to incarceration is now distinguished as an effective means of intervention and we have progressed similarly with pretrial cases."Federal Home Confinement Program
(Overview 1988-1996)
"The federal home confinement program represents an excellent supervision application for the future of community corrections. The high participant success rate has proven that nonviolent offenders and (pre-trial) defendants can be supervised in the community with relative safety and without incurring the added cost of incarceration and detention."
Comments from Judges:
Home Alone-But Not Forgotten,
Hon. Justice W.J. Vancise, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
"Electronic monitoring house arrest is an appropriate and effective alternative sanction for nonviolent crimes. A sanction which combines sufficient elements of punishment (it is both demeaning and intrusive) to be accepted by the public as an alternative to imprisonment. The empirical evidence would tend to demonstrate that is more effective in delivering rehabilitative programming and in reducing recidivism than traditional custodial sentences."How To Implement, Manage, And Evaluate An EM Program,
(BI, 1998)
"Protection is provided to the public and punishment is metered out to the offender. Electronic home arrest is an option that provides a standard of detention and helps the family unit to stay together."
Comments from offenders who have served time on EM:
Cleaner Than I Ever Was,
(Journal of Offender Monitoring, Volume 10 Number 2, Spring 1997,)
"You have to look at what would happen to a person in jail for three months. It would make you a hardened criminal. In jail, there is no counseling. It (EM) could prevent some people from becoming repeat offenders. I would have cracked up in jail."The Gilded Cage,
(The New York Times, Andy Behrman, 1996)
"House Arrest (EM) wasn't quite incarceration, but is wasn't exactly freedom either. It was like practice for the real thing: life "out there," unsupervised.
Conclusion
Electronic Monitoring (EM) is not just about saving public funds. If properly implemented, EM and its related technologies provide effective and legitimate means of reducing crime and increasing community safety.
WHY START AN EM PROGRAM?
EM is a tool used to complement various types of alternative sanction programs. Agencies continue to introduce new applications to EM with positive results. EM should be used within the confines of solid correctional policy and practice. Successful EM programs apply EM to populations and situations in which it can fulfill specific goals. In proper use, EM can restrict undesirable behavior, punish, support treatment efforts, reduce public risk and be an extremely cost-effective alternative to higher cost custody. EM cannot incapacitate offenders to the same degree that a custody placement could afford.
As described below, EM offers many worthwhile benefits to corrections officials and the public. While not often recognized, EM also provides many indirect benefits to an offender's family.
| PUBLIC Enhances public protection Provides accountability: offender often pays for EM Keeps prison beds free for more violent offenders Reduces family reliance on public assistance Helps avoid additional prison construction Improves assurance of appearance at trial for pre-trial defendants Improves offender’s work and/or school attendance Saves costs over prison |
OFFENDER & FAMILY Helps maintain family unit Provides transition for those on parole or leaving an institution Allows offender to maintain employment & support family Keeps low risk offenders from criminal influences of prison Allows parents to monitor a juvenile’s friends and activities Forces offenders to spend more time with children and spouse Provides needed structure by forcing adherence to a schedule Helps control impulsive offender behavior |
CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS Reports curfew compliance Provides reward and sanction tool to encourage responsible behavior Reduces requirement for routine tasks and investigatory activity Pays for itself and generates funds in some programs Helps identify suspect behavior Increase staff efficiencies, reduce sick days and stress Monitor court ordered alcohol abstinence automatically |
Jail and prison used to be the only choice for the tough cases. Over the past 10 to 15 years, community-based corrections programs have been required to enhance their supervision offerings to manage more difficult cases. Increased demand for management of cases diverted or transitioning from jail or prison has resulted in more specialized programs and caseloads. As intermediate sanctions have grown, so too has the advancement of technology. It may, for example, be appropriate to restrict the movements of a particular offender to only productive activities with the use of EM. While EM cannot force that offender to conduct him/herself responsibly, it does establish a framework that encourages positive behavior patterns. EM may also enforce curfew requirements that otherwise would require unreasonable or impossible efforts on the part of the corrections staff. In summary, EM may meet certain objectives previously accomplished in more restrictive placement.