Correction Class- Criminal Justice Class

This article was downloaded by: [ ] On: 10 October 2011, At: 11:59 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Justice Quarterly Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjqy20

The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees Mary A. Finn a & Suzanne Muirhead-Steves a a Georgia State University

Available online: 18 Aug 2006

To cite this article: Mary A. Finn & Suzanne Muirhead-Steves (2002): The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees, Justice Quarterly, 19:2, 293-312

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095251

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

T H E E F F E C T I V E N E S S O F E L E C T R O N I C M O N I T O R I N G W I T H V I O L E N T

M A L E P A R O L E E S *

M A R Y A. F I N N * * S U Z A N N E M U I R H E A D - S T E V E S * * *

Georgia State University

Research on electronic monitoring (EM) has ignored its effectiveness with high-risk, violent offenders. This article examines the effectiveness of using EM as a supervision tool for violent male parolees by comparing those who were mandated to such supervision who were released in fiscal year 1996 (N = 128) to a random sample who did not receive such supervision who were released in fiscal year 1995 (N = 158). Effectiveness was assessed by exam- ining return to prison and time to failure within four years of release. The results indicated that, after controlling for relevant demographic and crimi- nal history variables, EM had no direct effect on the likelihood of recommit- ment to prison or time until failure. Parolees who reported drug problems and those with lower parole-success likelihood scores were more likely to fail and to fail more quickly. Sex offenders on EM were less likely to return to prison than those not on EM, and those on EM who eventually returned to prison remained in the community longer than did those not on EM. Im- plications for the usefulness of EM as a tool in parole supervision are discussed.

The early release from prison of violent offenders to parole su- pervision is of concern to t h e public. In 1995, over 149,000 state offenders were released to parole supervision a n d close to one third

* The order of authorship indicates the level of contribution: The first author proposed the conceptual framework, analyzed the data, and wrote the article, and the second author refined and clarified aspects of the analysis and writing. Special acknowledgment is given to John Prevost, George Braucht, and Alan Shope, Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, for their assistance in preparing the data and provid- ing feedback on this article. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2000 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in San Francisco. Di- rect all correspondence to Mary A. Finn, Department of Criminal Justice, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302-4018; e-mail: [email protected].

** Mary A. Finn received her Ph.D. in criminal justice from the University at Albany in 1989. She is currently an associate professor of criminal justice at Georgia State University. Her research interests include justice system responses to family violence and evaluation of correctional policies. Her recent publications have ap- peared in C r i m i n a l Justice a n d Behavior and Women & Criminal Justice.

*** Suzanne Muirhead-Steves recently completed her master of science degree in criminal justice at Georgia State University.

J U ST I C E QUARTERLY, Vol. 19 No. 2, J u n e 2002 © 2002 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

294 ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF VIOLENT MALE PAROLEES

were released after serving time for violent offenses (U.S. Depart- m e n t of Justice, 1997). Even though studies have consistently re- ported t h a t recidivism rates for violent offenders are lower t h a n those for property and drug offenders (Burke, Adams, & Becki, 1990), w h e n a violent offender commits a n o t h e r violent offense, t h e public often questions the soundness of such release decisions (Seglem, 1992). Statistics suggest t h a t the likelihood of a released prisoner being r e a r r e s t e d is high--62.5% of t h e persons who were released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 were r e a r r e s t e d within t h r e e years (A. Beck & Shipley, 1989). Statistics also suggest t h a t released prisoners t e n d to be arrested for t h e same type of crime for which t h e y were released from prison (A. Beck & Shipley, 1989).

Given the penal h a r m movement (Clear, 1994) and conserva- tive ideological influences on correctional policies across the United States (Elrod & Brown, 1996), the State Board of Pardons and Pa- roles (2000) i n s t i t u t e d a policy in J u l y 1995 t h a t all offenders serv- ing time for violent offenses who are paroled from Georgia prisons be placed on m a x i m u m supervision with electronic monitoring (EM) for a m i n i m u m of t h r e e months. It was believed t h a t such a policy would provide g r e a t e r community safety because offenders would be more closely monitored t h a n t h e y would be with s t a n d a r d parole supervision alone. Thus, EM would act as a deterrent. F u r t h e r - more, t h e board believed t h a t the addition of EM to parole supervi- sion would encourage pro-social behavior by parolees, who would have to m a i n t a i n employment a n d spend their free time in their homes (Montes, 1996).

Prior research h a s focused largely on t h e use of EM as a front- end sentencing option--as an alternative to incarceration in prison or jail. Reviews of this research have concluded t h a t t h e r e is no sci- entific evidence t h a t EM reduces t h e criminal activity of those who are assigned to EM during or after completion of the EM component of their sentence (Enos, Holman, & Carroll, 1999; Tonry, 1998b; Whitfield, 1997). However, no research h a s examined the effective- ness of EM as an accompaniment to parole supervision with a high- risk population of violent offenders. This study examined t h e effec- tiveness of EM as a tool in parole supervision by comparing r e t u r n - to-prison and time-to-failure rates of violent parolees who were su- pervised with a n EM component to violent parolees who were su- pervised without an EM component.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

FINN AND MUIRHEAD-STEVES 295

L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW

Electronic Monitoring

EM refers to programs t h a t use electronic technological devices to ensure t h a t offenders are in compliance with the terms of their sentences. These devices include (1) the a t t a c h m e n t of t r a n s m i t t e r s to offenders, which permits t h e monitoring of their movements within t h e home via a modem attached to a telephone; (2) the at- t a c h m e n t of portable tracking devices to offenders, which permits the monitoring of their movements outside the home using satellite tracking (McGargle, 1997); and (3) call-reporting systems using voice verification technology or the insertion of ankle or wrist trans- mitters into its base (PHDAmeritech, 1999). These systems m a y provide either active (constant) monitoring or passive (intermittent) monitoring of a n offender. Constant systems involve the attach- m e n t of a t r a n s m i t t e r to the offender t h a t emits a continuous signal to a receiver. If the offender leaves the prescribed area, usually his or h e r home, t h e device records this violation. I n t e r m i t t e n t systems involve telephoning the offender a n d requiring t h e offender to re- spond within a prescribed time (to verify t h a t he or she is present by inserting a wrist t r a n s m i t t e r in a device or by repeating a series of words) (Schmidt, 1986).

The n u m b e r of offenders in the United States who are being electronically monitored is not known. A National Institute of Jus- tice Survey reported t h a t as of F e b r u a r y 1988, only 2,300 offenders were u n d e r electronic supervision across t h e country (Schmidt, 1989). In 1990, the n u m b e r of offenders on EM was reportedly 12,000 (T. L. B a u m e r & Mendelsohn, 1992, p. 54), and 1992 and 1993, t h e n u m b e r increased from 50,000 to 70,000 (Lilly, 1995, p. 113). A 1995 survey by t h e National Institute of Corrections, which gathered information from 148 correctional agencies, including the nation's largest local jail systems (n = 44), federal and state adult prison systems (n = 48), a n d state a n d local parole a n d probation agencies (n = 56), reported t h a t 88% of all state and local parole and probation agencies t h a t were surveyed used EM (LIS, Inc., & U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Justice, 1995). Thus, the use of EM appears to be widespread.

As t h e n u m b e r of persons monitored on EM has grown, the m a n n e r in which EM is used has also expanded. Since its introduc- tion as a component of home confinement or house a r r e s t with adult offenders (Courtright, Berg, & Mutchnick, 2000; Enos et al., 1999; Lilly, Ball, Curry, & McMullen, 1993; Lilly, Ball, Curry, & Smith, 1992; Tonry, 1998b), it has been used as p a r t of the pretrial super- vision of criminal defendants (Cadigan, 1991; Cooprider & Kerby,

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

296 ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF VIOLENT MALE PAROLEES

1990; Gross, 1992; Maxfield & Baumer, 1990, 1992), with juvenile offenders (Charles, 1989a, 1989b; Ctarkson & Weakland, 1991; F. Davis & Lockman, 1995; Raider, 1994; Roy, 1994, 1997), as an al- ternative to revocation for persons who are supervised on probation or parole, a n d as an additional component of probation and parole supervision (Bryne, Lurigio, & Baird, 1989; Erwin, 1989).

Initially, EM was introduced as a cost-effective way to reduce jail a n d prison overcrowding (Palumbo, Clifford, & Snyder-Joy, 1992). In addition to reducing overcrowding and costs by diverting jail- and prison-bound inmates to EM, it was also seen as providing offenders with opportunities to participate in rehabilitative ser- vices, such as work programs and drug rehabilitation programs (Morris & Tonry, 1990), a n d to engage in pro-social experiences be- cause participants were typically required to m a i n t a i n employment and spend long periods at home. F u r t h e r m o r e , placement of an of- fender in t h e community on EM, r a t h e r t h a n in prison or jail, m e a n t a reduction in the length of his or h e r exposure to t h e nega- tive effects of these environments (Hofer & Meierhoefer, 1987). As a n alternative to incarceration, EM has been appealing to all inter- ested parties--judges, politicians, probation officials, the media, and t h e public. Because of its focus on surveillance, it has not been as heavily criticized as being "soft on crime" and a t h r e a t to public safety as have other community sentencing options. Thus, EM h a s been viewed as having a d e t e r r e n t effect because it enables the of- fender to be more closely monitored t h a n do other alternatives to incarceration (Elrod & Brown, 1996; Hofer & Meierhoefer, 1987; Palumbo et al. 1992; Tonry, 1998a).

However, this does not m e a n t h a t EM has escaped criticism. Although it h a s been advanced as a d e t e r r e n t because of t h e closer monitoring of offenders compared to s t a n d a r d community supervi- sion, some have claimed it is merely a slap on the wrist a n d fails to protect t h e community safely (DiIulio, 1997). Indeed, the media have reported several instances in which offenders who were super- vised on EM continued to commit criminal offenses (P. Davis, 2001; Sharp, 1997; Whitlock 1999). Others have criticized t h e t r e n d in community corrections to ignore the importance of rehabilitation in a quest to be j u s t as tough on crime as institutional corrections (Larivee, 1993). This t r e n d is of particular concern, given t h a t re- search has found t h a t good-quality rehabilitative programming, not control a n d surveillance, are positively associated with change in offenders and reductions in f u t u r e crime (Andrews & Bonta, 1998). In their evaluation of an intensive t r e a t m e n t program containing a n EM component for high-risk offenders, Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, and Rooney (2000b) found t h a t t h e t r e a t m e n t component, not t h e

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

FINN AND MUIRHEAD-STEVES 297

EM component, explained reductions in recidivism. T h e y s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e m a i n benefit of EM was t h a t i t m a y h a v e led to g r e a t e r compliance w i t h t h e t r e a t m e n t , t h u s indirectly c o n t r i b u t i n g to posi- tive outcomes for offenders.

Most of t h e s t u d i e s o f EM h a v e b e e n largely descriptive a n d h a v e relied on completion of t h e p r o g r a m as t h e single m e a s u r e of success (Gainey, Payne, & O'Toole, 2000). Some h a v e e x a m i n e d EM's effectiveness in r e d u c i n g levels of prison a n d jail overcrowd- ing, r e d u c i n g costs, or lowering r a t e s of probation violations (Cour- t r i g h t et al. 1997; Lilly e t al. 1992; Lilly et al. 1993; P a l u m b o et al. 1992; Petersilia, 1998). Overall, m o s t s t u d i e s h a v e been small a n d poorly designed (Enos et al. 1999; Tonry, 1998b; Whitfield, 1997). Enos et al. (1999, p. 74) s u m m a r i z e d t h e findings as follows:

To date, we k n o w of no scientific evidence d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t criminal activity is r e d u c e d while electronic monitor- ing is b e i n g utilized or after t h e use of technology w i t h of- fenders. C u r r e n t l y , t h e r e s e a r c h derived from relatively small s a m p l e s of offender populations, suggests t h a t w h e n properly utilized, EM provides a n o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e to in- carceration, b u t n o t h i n g else.

Electronic Monitoring as a Supervision Tool

I n addition to serving as a n a l t e r n a t i v e to incarceration, EM h a s also been u s e d as a n e n h a n c e m e n t to t r a d i t i o n a l probation a n d parole supervision a n d as a n a l t e r n a t i v e to revocation of probation a n d parole (Byrne et al., 1989). Most recently, EM h a s evolved into a back-end solution, u s e d in both d e t e r m i n a t e a n d i n d e t e r m i n a t e s e n t e n c i n g s y s t e m s , to p e r m i t t h e discretionary release or m a n d a t o r y release o f h i g h - r i s k offenders a n d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y to provide c o m m u n i t y protection. A t least n i n e s t a t e s (Arizona, Cali- fornia, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, P e n n s y l v a n i a , Texas, a n d Virginia), t h e U.S. Parole Commission, a n d t h r e e n a t i o n s (England, t h e N e t h e r l a n d s , a n d Wales) h a v e u s e d or c u r r e n t l y u s e EM to k e e p t a b s on offenders w h o are r e l e a s e d early from prison. J u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t u s e d EM as a postrelease supervision tool r a r e l y u s e d i t as a stand-alone m e a s u r e . I n s t e a d , EM accompanied o t h e r i n t e r v e n t i o n s t a r g e t e d at specific parolee populations. The eligibility criteria for entry, t h e conditions of supervision, t h e p r o g r a m r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d t h e d u r a t i o n of p r o g r a m s varied considerably across t h e interven- tions, t h u s m a k i n g a n y discussion of t h e effectiveness of EM, inde- p e n d e n t of t h e program, difficult a n d p e r h a p s misleading.

Overall, t h e findings from studies of t h e effectiveness of EM w i t h parole p o p u l a t i o n s h a v e been mixed. Several w e a k n e s s e s in

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

298 ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF VIOLENT MALE PAROLEES

methodological d e s i g n m a k e t h e findings suspect. S t u d i e s h a v e re- p o r t e d t h a t 7 0 % - 9 4 % of offenders s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e E M (Brown & Roy, 1995, p. 38). H o w e v e r , m o s t e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s h a v e failed to e x a m i n e o t h e r o u t c o m e s , s u c h a s r e a r r e s t , revocation, or reconvic- tion, a n d h a v e failed to i d e n t i f y factors r e l a t e d to t h e s e o u t c o m e s (Dodgson & M o r t i m e r , 2000; E i s e r e r , 1998; "Electronic T a g g i n g Ex- p e r i m e n t Successful," 1999; P e t e r s i l i a , 1998). Often, no c o m p a r i s o n g r o u p s or control g r o u p s h a v e b e e n e m p l o y e d , w h i c h m a k e s it im- p o s s i b l e to c o m p a r e t h e t r u e effect o f E M to t h a t of s t a n d a r d p a r o l e s u p e r v i s i o n or o t h e r i n t e r v e n t i o n s (Bonta, W a l l a c e - C a p r e t t a , & Rooney, 2000a). As e l u d e d to earlier, selection c r i t e r i a w e r e o f t e n u s e d to "cream" f r o m t h e o f f e n d e r p o p u l a t i o n t h o s e w h o w e r e low r i s k - - t h a t is, t h o s e w h o w e r e convicted of n o n v i o l e n t or d r u g crimes w i t h l i m i t e d prior records. T h u s , l o w e r r e c i d i v i s m r a t e s t h a t w e r e o b s e r v e d in c o m p a r i s o n to t h o s e r e l e a s e d to s t a n d a r d p a r o l e s u p e r - vision could be d u e to one or m o r e of t h e s e selection criteria, n o t to EM. Finally, t h e follow-up p e r i o d s w e r e r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t (often less t h a n t h r e e y e a r s ) a n d o f t e n e x a m i n e d p a r o l e p e r f o r m a n c e only w h i l e t h e o f f e n d e r s w e r e on EM. Since t h e l e n g t h of t i m e p l a c e d on E M is t y p i c a l l y only a fraction of t h e e n t i r e p e r i o d of p a r o l e s u p e r v i - sion, t h e b e h a v i o r of o f f e n d e r s a f t e r t h e y c o m p l e t e E M is i m p o r t a n t to e x a m i n e to d e t e r m i n e t h e l o n g - t e r m effects of EM.

W i t h t h e s e s h o r t c o m i n g s in mind, a r e v i e w of t h i s r e s e a r c h sug- g e s t s t h a t t h e f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to success on E M a r e s i m i l a r to t h o s e r e l a t e d to r e c i d i v i s m in general. Y o u n g e r o f f e n d e r s w e r e m o r e likely to fail t h a n w e r e older o f f e n d e r s (Roy, 1997). W o m e n did b e t t e r t h a n m e n on E M ( G a i n e y et al., 2000; Lilly et al., 1993). O f f e n d e r s w h o w e r e e m p l o y e d e i t h e r full- or p a r t t i m e w e r e m o r e likely to c o m p l e t e E M s u c c e s s f u l l y ( C o u r t r i g h t e t al., 2000). The m o r e exten- sive a n offender's c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y , as m e a s u r e d b y prior a r r e s t s a n d p r i o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n s , t h e m o r e likely h e or s h e w a s to fail (J. Beck, Klein-Saffran, & Wooten, 1990; B o n t a e t al. 2000a; G a i n e y e t al., 2000; Roy, 1997). Traffic offenders, c o m p a r e d to felony a n d m i s d e m e a n o r offenders, w e r e less likely to be r e a r r e s t e d ( G a i n e y e t al., 2000). The longer a n offender s p e n t on EM, t h e g r e a t e r t h e like- lihood o f s u c c e s s f u l completion, t h e s m a l l e r t h e likelihood of r e a r - r e s t , a n d t h e longer t h e t i m e u n t i l a n e w a r r e s t i f one did occur ( G a i n e y et al., 2000).

T H E S T U D Y

T h e s t u d y r e p o r t e d h e r e e x a m i n e d t h e effectiveness of u s i n g E M a s a b a c k - e n d s t r a t e g y w i t h m a l e v i o l e n t offenders. O n t h e ba- sis of t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n of E M to p a r o l e s u p e r v i s i o n e i t h e r d e t e r s or r e h a b i l i t a t e s parolees, it w a s p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h o s e w h o

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

FINN AND MUIRHEAD-STEVES 299

were supervised with EM would be less likely to r e t u r n to prison and would r e m a i n in the community longer before r e t u r n i n g to prison t h a n were those who were supervised without EM. The study overcame several methodological weaknesses of prior re- search by including a comparison group of violent offenders who were released one y e a r earlier, using no selection criteria other t h a n t h a t they were paroled after serving time for a violent offense, and controlling for relevant legal and criminal history variables, in- cluding offender risk.

The Program

Beginning on J u l y 1, 1995, the Georgia Board of Pardons a n d Paroles required all i n m a t e s who were convicted of violent offenses, including sex offenses, to be placed immediately on EM on their re- lease from prison for a m i n i m u m of 90 days. Upon completion of EM, t h e parolee was typically placed on m a x i m u m supervision for 180 days. Depending on t h e n u m b e r of parolees assigned to EM, one or more parole officers were assigned to handle EM cases in each of t h e state's 10 district offices. Parole officers with EM cases were responsible for installing t h e equipment on the parolees, conducting orientations for parolees assigned to EM, maintaining and cleaning the EM equipment, providing the EM vendor with a schedule of the parolees' activities, reviewing compliance reports generated by the EM vendor, and supervising the parolees. Placement on EM re- quired t h a t parolees r e m a i n at home except during scheduled activ- ities, thus permitting t h e m to work and to a t t e n d necessary t r e a t m e n t . Individualized schedules were devised t h a t outlined when the parolees were permitted to be away from their residences. All schedule changes h a d to be approved by the supervising parole officers. During t h e first 30 days of EM, parolees were allowed only limited time away from their residences to seek employment or par- ticipate in programs. I f a parolee demonstrated his or h e r compli- ance with EM, additional time away from t h e residence could be given. I f a parolee violated his or h e r curfew, t h e parole officer was notified by t h e vendor. Responses to EM violations were determined on a case-by-case basis. Generally, sanctions of progressively in- creasing severity were employed until t h e parolee was compliant or t h e revocation process began (State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2OOO).

Data

This study used data files compiled by the central office of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. Two groups were selected.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

300 E L E C T R O N I C M O N I T O R I N G O F V I O L E N T MALE P A R O L E E S

The EM group (N = 146) w a s t h e e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n of violent parol- ees placed on EM on t h e i r r e l e a s e from prison in fiscal y e a r 1996 ( J u l y 1, 1 9 9 5 - J u n e 30, 1996). 1 S e v e n t e e n cases were excluded be- cause t h e y were f e m a l e offenders, 2 a n d one case w a s excluded be- cause t h e crime of conviction w a s nonviolent. Thus, t h e final EM s a m p l e consisted of 128 cases. To e n s u r e comparable group sizes, a s u b s a m p l e of violent offenders w a s r a n d o m l y selected from t h e co- h o r t of m a l e violent offenders (N = 320) r e l e a s e d to parole supervi- sion in t h e prior fiscal y e a r ( J u l y 1, 1 9 9 4 - J u n e 30, 1995). This original s u b s a m p l e consisted of 170 cases. For purposes of validity, t h e crimes of conviction a n d t y p e of r e l e a s e w e r e e x a m i n e d for t h i s group to e n s u r e t h a t only violent offenders who were r e l e a s e d to parole supervision were in t h e sample. This e x a m i n a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n 12 cases being excluded f r o m t h e n o n - E M group b e c a u s e t h e y did n o t m e e t t h i s criterion. I n five cases, t h e m o s t serious conviction offenses w e r e n o n v i o l e n t (i.e., b u r g l a r y or d r u g offenses), a n d in seven cases, offenders w e r e r e l e a s e d from boot c a m p (n = 6) or pa- roled from a s u p e r v i s e d reprieve (n = 1). E x c l u d i n g t h e s e 12 cases r e s u l t e d in a final s a m p l e size of 158 cases in t h e n o n - E M group.

V a r i a b l e s

D e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s . Recidivism w a s m e a s u r e d in two ways. F i r s t , it w a s defined as r e c o m m i t m e n t to prison w i t h i n t h r e e to four y e a r s a f t e r release from parole, coded 1 = yes (n = 67) a n d 0 = no (n = 219). For t h e non-EM group (released in fiscal 1995), r e c o m m i t m e n t w a s coded 1 i f t h e parolee r e t u r n e d to prison a f t e r release a n d before S e p t e m b e r 22, 1998, 0 otherwise. For t h e E M group (released in fiscal 1996) r e c o m m i t m e n t w a s coded 1 i f t h e parolee r e t u r n e d to prison a f t e r release a n d before S e p t e m b e r 22, 1999, 0 otherwise. E x t e n d i n g t h e follow-up period for t h e EM group into 1999 a s s u r e d s i m i l a r l e n g t h s of parole s u p e r v i s i o n or t i m e a t r i s k across t h e two groups. Despite a d j u s t m e n t of t h e follow-up periods, t h e m e a n n u m - b e r of d a y s on parole s u p e r v i s i o n differed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t w e e n t h e groups, t = -2.14, p < .05 (the n o n - E M group, M = 1,131 days, S D = 376, a n d t h e EM group, M = 1,217 days, S D = 275). The second

1 O f t h e 128 parolees placed on E M i m m e d i a t e l y upon r e l e a s e from prison, 6 (4.7%) did n o t successfully complete t h e i r E M component. Two of t h e s e 6 parolees w e r e r e c o m m i t t e d to prison a t some point d u r i n g t h e follow-up period.

2 The n u m b e r of f e m a l e offenders available for a n a l y s i s was too s m a l l to in- clude in t h e study. Specifically, in fiscal y e a r 1996, 17 f e m a l e violent offenders were placed on E M i m m e d i a t e l y upon r e l e a s e to parole supervision, a n d in 1997, 6 female violent offenders w e r e r e l e a s e d to parole supervision. F o r over h a l f t h e female cases, d a t a w e r e missing for s e v e r a l key variables, p r e v e n t i n g t h e inclusion of g e n d e r as a v a r i a b l e i n t h e analysis.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

FINN AND MUIRHEAD-STEVES 301

d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , t i m e u n t i l r e c o m m i t m e n t t o p r i s o n , w a s de-

r i v e d b y s u b t r a c t i n g t h e d a t e t h e p a r o l e b e g a n f r o m t h e d a t e o f re-

c o m m i t m e n t t o p r i s o n . F o r t h e 67 p a r o l e e s w h o r e t u r n e d t o p r i s o n ,

t h e n u m b e r o f d a y s s p e n t i n t h e c o m m u n i t y r a n g e d f r o m 70 to 1,360

( M = 6 6 5 d a y s , S D = 3 7 3 . 2 d a y s ) .

I n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s . E l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g w a s c o d e d 1 i f a vio-

l e n t p a r o l e e r e c e i v e d E M w h e n p a r o l e s u p e r v i s i o n b e g a n a n d 0 i f h e

d i d n o t . T h e l e n g t h o f t i m e a p a r o l e e w a s m o n i t o r e d r a n g e d f r o m 6

t o 153 d a y s ( M = 8 7 . 4 d a y s , S D = 2 0 . 1 9 d a y s ) . O f t h e 6 p a r o l e e s

(4.7%) w h o d i d n o t s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e t h e i r E M c o m p o n e n t , 2

(33.3%) w e r e r e c o m m i t t e d t o p r i s o n a t s o m e p o i n t d u r i n g t h e follow-

u p p e r i o d , c o m p a r e d to 14 (11.5%) w h o c o m p l e t e d E M . I n a d d i t i o n ,

97 p a r o l e e s c o m p l e t e d E M w i t h n o v i o l a t i o n s , a n d 2 5 p a r o l e e s c o m -

p l e t e d E M w i t h s o m e v i o l a t i o n s .

C o n t r o l variables. To d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t o f E M o n r e c o m m i t m e n t

t o p r i s o n , it w a s i m p o r t a n t t o c o n t r o l f o r c e r t a i n d e m o g r a p h i c a n d

c r i m i n a l - h i s t o r y v a r i a b l e s t h a t p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s i d e n t i f i e d a s i n f l u -

e n c i n g r e c i d i v i s m . T h e s e v a r i a b l e s , p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 1 f o r t h e E M

g r o u p (n = 128) a n d n o n - E M g r o u p (n = 158), i n c l u d e d r a c e ( c o d e d

w h i t e = 1, 0 = n o n w h i t e ) , e d u c a t i o n ( c o d e d h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t e o r

m o r e = 1, l e s s t h a n h i g h s c h o o l = 0), a g e a t r e l e a s e , 3 s e l f - r e p o r t e d

d r u g p r o b l e m ( c o d e d y e s = 1, n o = 0), s e l f - r e p o r t e d a l c o h o l p r o b l e m

( c o d e d y e s = 1, n o = 0), m o s t s e r i o u s c o m m i t m e n t o f f e n s e 4 ( d u m m y

c o d e d a s h o m i c i d e , s e x c r i m e , a n d o t h e r , w i t h r o b b e r y s e r v i n g a s t h e

r e f e r e n c e c a t e g o r y ) , t i m e s e r v e d i n y e a r s , p r i o r p r i s o n i n c a r c e r a t i o n

( c o d e d y e s = 1, n o = 0), p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n ( c o d e d y e s = 1, n o =

3 Because of its positive skew, the log of age at release was calculated and used in all analyses.

4 The most serious crime of commitment was coded by selecting the most seri- ous one listed for a criminal incident. Crimes were ranked in order of severity on the basis of sentencing information contained in the Georgia Criminal Code. Specifically, all offenses eligible for the death penalty were ranked as most serious and then in correspondence to the possible length of the prison sentence that could be imposed. In instances in which there were ties between offenses (i.e., when the lengths that could be imposed were identical), crimes of a sexual nature and those with child victims were rated as more serious than others. The most serious commitment of- fense was then coded as an indicator variable with the variables, homicide, sex crime, and other used to represent the various categories of violent crime for which parolees were convicted. Specifically, homicide was coded 1 if the parolee's commit- ment offense was for homicide (murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and vehicular homicide) and 0 otherwise; sex crime was coded 1 if a parolee's com- mitment offense was for a sex crime (rape, criminal attempt to rape, sodomy, incest, child molestation, aggravated sodomy, statutory rape, sexual battery, aggravated sexual battery, and sexual exploitation of a child) and 0 otherwise; and other was coded 1 if a parolee's commitment offense did not involve the previous crimes listed or armed robbery, robbery, attempted armed robbery, or attempted robbery and 0 otherwise. Robbery served as the reference category.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

3 0 2 E L E C T R O N I C M O N I T O R I N G O F V I O L E N T M A L E P A R O L E E S

0), a n d t o t a l p a r o l e s u c c e s s g u i d e l i n e s score. 5 E a c h i n m a t e w h o w a s eligible for p a r o l e r e l e a s e w a s a s s e s s e d u s i n g p a r o l e s u c c e s s guide- lines, w h i c h c o n s i d e r e d t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of t h e crime o f c o m m i t m e n t a n d t h e p a r o l e e ' s score on s u c c e s s f a c t o r s to c a l c u l a t e t h e m i n i m u m n u m b e r o f m o n t h s a p a r o l e e h a d to s e r v e b e f o r e b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d for r e l e a s e . T h e h i g h e s t overall score, w h i c h i n d i c a t e s a p r o m i s i n g c a s e for s u c c e s s i f r e l e a s e d , w a s 20.

Analytic Strategy

To e x a m i n e t h e effects of E M on p a r o l e e s ' r e c o m m i t m e n t to prison, logistic r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s w a s u s e d . This t e c h n i q u e is ap- p r o p r i a t e , g i v e n t h e d i c h o t o m o u s n a t u r e o f t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e coded a s r e t u r n to p r i s o n (1) or n o t (0), w h i c h v i o l a t e s t h e o r d i n a r y l e a s t s q u a r e s (OLS) a s s u m p t i o n s of h o m o s c e d a s t i c i t y . S i m i l a r to l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n , a logistic r e g r e s s i o n coefficient i n d i c a t e s t h e in- f l u e n c e t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e or p r e d i c t o r h a s on t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e a f t e r controlling for t h e effects o f t h e r e m a i n i n g i n d e p e n - d e n t v a r i a b l e s in t h e model. T h e coefficients i n d i c a t e t h e c h a n g e in t h e log odds of t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a one u n i t c h a n g e in t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e . M o r e u s e f u l a n d i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n c a n be o b t a i n e d from looking a t t h e c h a n g e in odds (ex- p o n e n t of t h e coefficient), w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h e likelihood of a n out- come o c c u r r i n g - - i n t h i s case, r e t u r n to p r i s o n ( T a b a c h n i c k & Fidell, 2001).

Cox p r o p o r t i o n a l h a z a r d s m o d e l w a s u s e d to e x a m i n e t h e ef- fects o f E M a n d control v a r i a b l e s on t i m e to f a i l u r e ( r e t u r n to prison). T h i s t e c h n i q u e , also r e f e r r e d to a s s u r v i v a l or e v e n t - h i s t o r y a n a l y s i s , h a s b e e n u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y in r e s e a r c h on r e c i d i v i s m (A1- b o n e t t i & H e p b u r n , 1997; C h u n g , S c h m i d t , & W i t t e , 1991; D e J o n g , 1997; G a i n e y e t al., 2000; MacKenzie, 1991). This t y p e o f a n a l y s i s a c c o m m o d a t e s c e n s o r e d c a s e s (i.e., w h e n t h e e v e n t does n o t occur d u r i n g t h e follow-up period) and, s i m i l a r to logistic r e g r e s s i o n , u s e s a log-linear, r a t h e r t h a n a linear, m o d e l (Allison, 1984; T a b a c h n i c k & Fidell, 2001). Cox r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s a s s u m e s t h a t t h e s h a p e s of s u r v i v a l f u n c t i o n s a r e t h e s a m e for all g r o u p s o v e r t i m e (i.e., t h a t i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s do n o t i n t e r a c t w i t h time). V i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n

5 P a r o l e s u c c e s s ~ a c t o r s A - H a n d t h e i r s c o r i n g a r e F a c t o r A: a g e a t f i r s t c o m - m i t m e n t ( 2 6 o r o v e r = 5, 2 2 - 2 5 = 3, 1 8 - 2 1 = 2, a n d 17 o r y o u n g e r = 0), F a c t o r B: p r i o r j u v e n i l e a n d a d u l t c o n v i c t i o n s ( n o n e = 3, 1 = 2, 2 - 3 = 1, a n d 4 o r m o r e = 0), F a c t o r C: p r i o r i n c a r c e r a t i o n s s i n c e a g e 17 ( n o n e = 2, i = 1, a n d 2 o r m o r e = 0), F a c t o r D: p r o b a t i o n / p a r o l e f a i l u r e ( n o n e = 4, p r o b a t i o n o n l y = 2, p a r o l e o n l y = 1, a n d b o t h p a - r o l e a n d p r o b a t i o n f a i l u r e = 0), F a c t o r E: h e r o i n o r o p i a t e u s e ( n o h i s t o r y = I a n d h a s h i s t o r y o f u s e = 0), F a c t o r F: c o m m i t m e n t o f f e n s e i n v o l v e d b u r g l a r y o r f o r g e r y ( n o = 2, y e s = 0), F a c t o r G: f u l l y e m p l o y e d d u r i n g s i x m o n t h s p r i o r t o c u r r e n t o f f e n s e ( y e s = 1, n o = 0), a n d F a c t o r H: h a d a W i d e R a n g e A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t s c o r e o f 8 . 0 o r h i g h e r ( y e s = 2, n o = 0). T - t e s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e E M a n d n o n - E M g r o u p s d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y o n t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l i t e m s .

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

T a b l e 1.

F I N N A N D M U I R H E A D - S T E V E S

D e m o g r a p h i c a n d C r i m i n a l H i s t o r y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s b y E M S t a t u s

3 0 3

Chi Square o r t- N o n - E M G r o u p E M Group t e s t and

(n = 158) (n = 128) Significance

Variables n or M % or (SD) n or M % or (SD)

Race (nonwhite) 103 65.2% 82 64.1% x2(2, N=286)=.039 Education X2(2, N=285)=.012

Less t h a n high school 90 57.3% 67 42.7% H i g h school graduate or more 74 57.8% 54 42.2%

Mean age at release 33.8 (9.76) 33.9 (8.99) t ( 2 8 6 ) = - . 1 3 3 D r u g problem 77 48.7% 62 48.4% X~(2, N=286)=.002 Alcohol p r o b l e m 66 41.8% 56 43.8% X2(2, N=286)=.113 Commitment offense X~(4, N=286)=1.435

R o b b e r y 67 42.4% 48 37.5% S e x c r i m e s 44 27.8% 35 27.3% H o m i c i d e 29 18.4% 25 19.5% Other 18 11.4% 20 15.6%

Mean time served (years) 4.68 (1.81) 4.48 (2.25) t(286)=.436

Mean number o f p r i s o n incarcerations 1.35 (1.50) 1.38 (1.39) t ( 2 8 6 ) = - . 2 0 1

Mean number o f felony convictions 1.97 (1.51) 1.92 (1.34) t(286)=.309

Mean total parole success guidelines score 12.5 (4.50) 13.3 (4.25) t ( 2 8 6 ) = - 1 . 5 6

Mean number o f days on parole 1,131 (376) 1,217 (275) t ( 2 8 6 ) = - 2 . 1 4 "

Mean number o f days before return to p r i s o n 125.0 (276.4) 193.5 (392.05) t ( 2 8 6 ) = - t . 7 3

Returned to prison 37 23.4% 30 23.4% X2(2, N=286)=.000

* p < .05.

of the plots o f the survival functions for different groups o f indepen- dent variables should appear parallel when this assumption is met. A further test o f this assumption w a s done by constructing a time variable and calculating interaction terms between the time covariate and the other covariates in the model. A model containing all independent variables and the interaction terms w a s run. None o f the interaction terms w a s statisticalJy significant (p < .004). The more stringent alpha level o f .004 w a s used because o f the number o f time-covariate interactions being evaluated. Thus, the propor- tional hazard model was the appropriate strategy for the data used in this study.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

304 ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF VIOLENT MALE PAROLEES

R E S U L T S

Demographic and Criminal Histories of Parolees

T e s t i n g o f significant differences b e t w e e n t h e E M a n d n o n - E M groups on t h e control v a r i a b l e s w a s c o n d u c t e d u s i n g t-tests for in- terval-level v a r i a b l e s a n d c h i - s q u a r e for n o m i n a l level variables. T h e r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d in Table 1 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e two groups did n o t differ significantly in a g e a t r e l e a s e f r o m prison, race, educa- tional level, self-reported d r u g a n d alcohol problems, m o s t serious c o m m i t m e n t offense, t i m e s e r v e d in y e a r s , prior prison i n c a r c e r a - tions, prior felony convictions, or total parole success guidelines score.

T h e typical p a r o l e e w a s n o n w h i t e , aged 33, w i t h less t h a n a h i g h school e d u c a t i o n , a n d no r e p o r t e d d r u g or alcohol problem. He h a d s e r v e d 4.6 y e a r s on a v e r a g e for robbery, h a d a t l e a s t one prior prison i n c a r c e r a t i o n a n d a t l e a s t one prior felony conviction, a n d a total parole success g u i d e l i n e s score of 12.86 (out of a possible score of 20).

T h e c u m u l a t i v e f a i l u r e r a t e or h a z a r d r a t e f u n c t i o n is p r e s e n t e d in F i g u r e 1. T h e h a z a r d r a t e is t h e probability t h a t a n e v e n t will occur a t a p a r t i c u l a r t i m e to a p a r t i c u l a r individual, given t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l is a t r i s k a t t h a t t i m e (Allison, 1984, p. 16). S t u d i e s h a v e typically r e p o r t e d t h e h i g h e s t recidivism r a t e s r e l a t i v e l y soon a f t e r r e l e a s e f r o m prison, w i t h t h e r i s k s d e c r e a s i n g a f t e r t h e f i r s t y e a r (E. B a u m e r , 1997; DeJong, 1997; G a i n e y et al. 2000; S c h m i d t & Witte, 1988). T h e s h a p e of t h e h a z a r d f u n c t i o n p r e s e n t e d in F i g u r e 1 does n o t follow this p a t t e r n .

As r e p o r t e d earlier, t h e l o n g e s t period of E M w a s 153 days. No parolees w e r e r e t u r n e d to p r i s o n w h i l e t h e y w e r e being m o n i t o r e d electronically. A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e d a y s to f a i l u r e f r o m t h e sur- vival a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t 4 parolees in t h e n o n - E M group w e r e r e t u r n e d to p r i s o n w i t h i n 150 d a y s o f t h e i r r e l e a s e to parole super- vision. F u r t h e r m o r e , a n e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e f a i l u r e r a t e s t h a t oc- c u r r e d w i t h i n one y e a r of r e l e a s e to parole s u p e r v i s i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t only 4 p a r o l e e s in t h e E M group w e r e r e t u r n e d to prison, com- p a r e d to 15 parolees in t h e n o n - E M group. This f i n d i n g s u g g e s t s t h a t E M m a y a c t u a l l y d e l a y t h e r e t u r n of parolees to p r i s o n d u r i n g t h e f i r s t y e a r o f p a r o l e supervision. However, t h e r e s u l t s of t h e log- r a n k t e s t show t h a t t h e s u r v i v a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s across t h e f o u r - y e a r follow-up period did n o t differ significantly b y E M s t a t u s (log r a n k = .32, p = .57). F o r t h o s e w h o w e r e a c t u a l l y r e t u r n e d to prison w i t h i n t h e f o u r - y e a r follow-up period, t h e a v e r a g e s u r v i v a l t i m e w a s 660 d a y s (slightly less t h a n two years). T h e e s t i m a t e d K a p l a n - M e i e r s u r v i v a l t i m e w a s m u c h l o n g e r (1,470 d a y s or four years).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

F i g u r e 1. 3

F I N N A N D M U I R H E A D - S T E V E S

H a z a r d r a t e for r e t u r n t o p r i s o n

305

0,0

E r ) ..1

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time To Prison Return (Days)

R e t u r n to Prison

A logistic r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s w a s u s e d to e x a m i n e t h e effect of E M on r e c o m m i t m e n t to prison. T h e f i r s t e q u a t i o n c o n t a i n e d all 12 control v a r i a b l e s a n d EM. T h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s analysis, p r e s e n t e d in Table 2, i n d i c a t e d t h a t only two v a r i a b l e s - - t o t a l parole success g u i d e l i n e s score a n d self-reported d r u g p r o b l e m - - w e r e significantly r e l a t e d to r e c o m m i t m e n t . Specifically, p a r o l e e s w h o r e p o r t e d hav- i n g d r u g problems, i n c l u d i n g occasional u s e a n d addiction, w e r e 2.8 t i m e s m o r e likely to r e t u r n to prison w i t h i n t h e follow-up period. F u r t h e r m o r e , as a parolee's total success guidelines score in- creased, t h e odds o f r e t u r n i n g to p r i s o n d e c r e a s e d . E M w a s n o t sig- n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to a r e t u r n to prison.

B e c a u s e prior r e s e a r c h h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t E M m a y h a v e differ- e n t effects, d e p e n d i n g on t h e t y p e of o f f e n d e r ( G a i n e y e t al. 2000), i n t e r a c t i o n effects 6 w e r e c a l c u l a t e d for E M b y e a c h o f t h e 12 control v a r i a b l e s a n d a second logistic r e g r e s s i o n m o d e l w a s r u n . R e s u l t s from t h i s analysis, also p r e s e n t e d i n Table 2, i n d i c a t e t h a t sex of- f e n d e r s overall w e r e 4.3 t i m e s m o r e likely to be r e t u r n e d to p r i s o n

6 To reduce m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y i n t h e i n t e r a c t i v e model, v a r i a b l e s w e r e first c e n t e r e d (Aiken & West, 1991). T h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s c e n t e r e d model did n o t differ sig- nificantly from t h o s e of t h e n o n c e n t e r e d model, so for ease o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e n o n c e n t e r e d model is p r e s e n t e d in Table 3.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

306 E L E C T R O N I C M O N I T O R I N G O F V I O L E N T MALE P A R O L E E S

T a b l e 2. C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r R e t u r n t o P r i s o n a n d T i m i n g o f R e t u r n t o P r i s o n ( D i r e c t E f f e c t s M o d e l )

Probability o f R e t u r n to Prison

Proportional H a z a r d s Model o f R e t u r n to P r i s o n

Variables b (SE) Exp. b b (SE) Exp. b

E M .0887 (.3073) 1.093 -.0876 (.2567) .916 D r u g problem 1.02 (.3426)** 2.771 1.00 (.2896)*** 2.737 T o t a l success score -.1051 (.0448)* .900 - . 1 2 5 6 (.0384)** .882 Homicide -.9046 (.6234) .405 - . 7 9 7 4 (.5694) .451 Sex c r i m e .7027 (.5176) 2.019 .7308 (,4393) 2.077 O t h e r crime .2673 (.5140) 1.306 .1823 (,4291) 1.199 P r i o r prison .6581 (.4451) 1.931 .5461 (.3904) 1.726 P r i o r felonies -.1733 (.3671) .841 - . 2 2 7 0 (.3156) .797 T i m e s e r v e d -.0276 (.1025) .973 - . 0 7 1 2 (.0940) .931 Alcohol problem -.4527 (.3261) .636 - . 5 2 0 8 (.2719) .594 Race .5099 (.3740) 1.665 .4268 (.3094) .916 E d u c a t i o n .2449 (.3108) 1.277 .1773 (.2542) 1.194 Age a t releas e (log) - 2 . 5 3 (1.67) .079 - 2 . 1 8 (1.38) .113 C o n s t a n t 2.594 (2.43) N 286 N a g e l k e r k e r 2 .185 - 2 log likelihood 273.9 Model chi-s quare 37.50*** DF 13 Total p e r c e n t a g e a c c u r a t e l y classified 78.32% P e r c e n t a g e a c c u r a t e l y classified o f active on parole 97.72% P e r c e n t a g e a c c u r a t e l y classified o f n o t active on parole 14.93%

Note: The n u m b e r s u n d e r t h e "b" column a r e u n s t a n d a r d i z e d coefficients. The n u m b e r s u n d e r t h e "exp. b" column indicate t h e odds of r e t u r n i n g to prison. * p < .05, * * p < .01, * * * p < .001.

t h a n w e r e r o b b e r s . H o w e v e r , p l a c e m e n t on E M w e a k e n s t h i s rela- tionship. Sex o f f e n d e r s w h o w e r e placed on E M w e r e .18 t i m e s less likely to r e t u r n to p r i s o n t h a n w e r e sex o f f e n d e r s w h o w e r e n o t p l a c e d on E M 7 T h e p a r o l e s u c c e s s likelihood score a n d self-re- p o r t e d d r u g p r o b l e m s c o n t i n u e d to affect t h e likelihood o f r e t u r n i n g to prison.

7 W e conducted s e v e r a l diagnostics before w e conducted t h e logistic regression models a n d t h e Cox r e g r e s s i o n models. F i r s t , t h e presence of u n i v a r i a t e a n d mul- t i v a r i a t e o u t l i e r s a m o n g t h e cases w a s assessed. F r e q u e n c y distributions w e r e v i s u - ally inspected, a n d M a h a l a n o b i s d i s t a n c e a t p < .001 was calculated for each case a n d e v a l u a t e d u s i n g ~(2 w i t h degrees of freedom e q u a l to t h e n u m b e r of variables. No cases w e r e u n i v a r i a t e or m u l t i v a r i a t e outliers. B i v a r i a t e correlation coefficients were calculated to identify possible collinearity problems between t h e variables. C o m m i t m e n t offense o f sex c r i m e is m o d e r a t e l y correlated w i t h race (r = -.39, p < .01), w i t h t o t a l parole success guidelines score (r = .31, p < .01), a n d w i t h t i m e s e r v e d in y e a r s (r = .41, p < .01). One variable, t o t a l parole success likelihood score, was strongly correlated w i t h prior felony conviction (r = -.51, p < .01) a n d w i t h t i m e served in y e a r s (r = -.44, p < .01). All o t h e r correlations w e r e w e a k a t or below .30. I n addition, t h e conditioning index a n d v a r i a n c e proportions for e a c h i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i - able w e r e calculated. A v a r i a b l e w i t h a conditioning index > 30, coupled w i t h a t l e a s t two v a r i a n c e proportions > .50, indicates t h a t m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y is operating. I n both r e g r e s s i o n models, only one conditioning i n d e x was > 30, and no single v a r i a b l e h a d more t h a n one v a r i a n c e proportion > .50.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

F I N N A N D M U I R H E A D - S T E V E S 307

T i m e to F a i l u r e

Cox regression analysis was used to examine t h e effect of EM on time to failure ( r e t u r n to prison). The first equation contained all 12 control variables and EM. The results of this analysis, presented in Table 3, indicate t h a t only two variables, total parole success guidelines score and self-reported drug problem, were significantly related to time to recommitment, and in the expected direction, s Parolees who reported having a drug problem r e t u r n e d to prison more quickly t h a n did those without such a problem. As a parolee's parole success likelihood score increased, so did the length of time t h a t the parolee was in the community before he r e t u r n e d to prison.

Because t h e earlier logistic regression model indicated t h a t the effects of EM varied by type of offender, a Cox regression model, which included interaction effects for EM by type of offender, was run. These results, presented in Table 3, indicate t h a t sex offenders overall fail more quickly t h a n do robbers, but placement on EM de- lays the onset of their r e t u r n to prison. Drug problems and the total parole success likelihood score m a i n t a i n their significant effects.

D I S C U S S I O N

The results suggest t h a t adding an EM component to parole supervision has no significant independent effect on t h e likelihood of a parolee being recommitted to prison during the follow-up period or on t h e a m o u n t of time before r e c o m m i t m e n t to prison, after con- trolling for other relevant variables, including parole success likeli- hood and prior criminal history. This finding coincides with those of Bonta et al. (2000a), who reported t h a t after controlling for of- fender's risk, EM h a d no effect on the n u m b e r of reconvictions. Fur- thermore, the findings do not suggest t h a t the closer surveillance of the EM group shortened the time to failure (i.e., the "goldfish bowl" effect) when compared to t h a t of the non-EM group (MacKenzie, 1991). In addition, t h e total parole success guidelines score is nega- tively related to r e t u r n to prison, which confirms the conclusions of prior research t h a t it is a fairly accurate predictor of general recidi- vism (Hoffman, 1983). Consistent with the findings of Pritchard (1979) and Zamble and Quinsey (1997), parolees who reported a problem with drugs were more likely to r e t u r n to prison.

Our findings suggest t h a t EM has different effects, depending on the type of offender. Whereas, sex offenders overall were more

s T h e s i g n s of t h e coefficients i n t h e model a r e i n t e r p r e t e d d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m t h o s e i n a t r a d i t i o n a l r e g r e s s i o n model. A p o s i t i v e e l e m e n t i n B i m p l i e s t h a t t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g v a r i a b l e h a s a p o s i t i v e effect o n t h e h a z a r d r a t e a n d t h u s a n e g a t i v e effect o n t i m e u n t i l r e t u r n to p r i s o n ( C h u n g e t al., 1991).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

308 ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF VIOLENT MALE PAROLEES

T a b l e 3. C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r R e t u r n t o P r i s o n a n d T i m i n g o f R e t u r n t o P r i s o n ( I n t e r a c t i v e M o d e l )

Probability of Return to Prison

Proportional Hazards Model of Return to Prison

Variables b (SE) Exp. b b (SE) Exp. b

EM .5862 (.4351) 1.797 . 4 5 6 6 (.3540) 1.579 Drug problem 1 . 0 8 (.3515)** 2.936 1 . 0 9 (.2893)*** 2.989 Total success score -.1005 (.0457)* .904 -.1240 (.0382)** .883 Sex crime 1 . 4 5 (.6239)* 4.254 1 . 5 5 (.5210) 4.711 Homicide -.9015 (.8467) .406 -.7878 (.7820) .455 Other crime .4058 (.7418) 1.501 . 4 6 1 0 (.6141) 1.586 Alcohol problem -.4630 (.3297) .629 -.5561 (.2728)* .573 EM x sex crime -1.70 (.7624)* .182 -1.78 (.6490)** .169 EM x homicide -.0354 (1.158) . 9 6 5 . 0 3 3 6 (1.069) 1.034 EM x other -.2805 (.9165) .755 -.5140 (.7305) .598 Prior prison .7801 (.4599) 2.182 . 5 4 6 1 (.3904) 1.726 Prior felonies -.2370 (.3717) .789 -.2270 (.3156) .797 Time served -.0235 (.1066) .977 -.0712 (.0940) .931 Race .5827 (.3813) 1.791 . 4 2 6 8 (.3094) .916 Education .2536 (.3151) 1.289 . 1 7 7 3 (.2542) 1.194 Age at release (log) -2.58 (1.69) .076 -2.18 (1.38) .113 Constant 2.206 (2.46) N 286 Nagelkerke ?z .211 -2 log likelihood 268.25 Model chi-square 43.14 DF 16 Total percentage accurately classified 78.32 Percentage accurately classified of active on parole 95.89 Percentage accurately classified of not active on parole 20.90

Note: The numbers under the "b" column are unstandardized coefficients. The numbers under the "exp. b" column indicate the odds of returning to prison. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

l i k e l y to r e t u r n to p r i s o n t h a n w e r e o t h e r v i o l e n t o f f e n d e r s , p l a c e -

m e n t o n E M r e d u c e d t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f a n d p o s t p o n e d t h e i r r e t u r n t o

p r i s o n . T h i s f i n d i n g is n o t s u r p r i s i n g , g i v e n t h a t r e s u l t s f r o m m e t a -

a n a l y s e s h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t i n t e r v e n t i o n p r o g r a m s w o r k b e s t f o r

h i g h - r i s k c l i e n t s ( C l e a r & B r a g a , 1998). I n d e e d , o n e w o u l d b e h a r d -

p r e s s e d to f i n d a h i g h e r r i s k g r o u p t h a n sex o f f e n d e r s . R e c i d i v i s m

r a t e s f o r s e x c r i m e s a r e h i g h e r a m o n g s e x o f f e n d e r s t h a n a m o n g

o t h e r v i o l e n t o f f e n d e r s ( G r e e n f i e l d , 1997). W h y w o u l d p l a c e m e n t o n

E M b e n e f i t s e x o f f e n d e r s b u t n o t o t h e r t y p e s o f v i o l e n t o f f e n d e r s ?

P e r h a p s , a s B o n t a e t al. ( 2 0 0 0 b ) c o n t e n d e d , E M , c o u p l e d w i t h i n t e n -

sive t r e a t m e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n s , r e s u l t e d i n g r e a t e r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h

t r e a t m e n t a n d l o w e r r e c i d i v i s m . N o i n f o r m a t i o n o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n

o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t r e a t m e n t w a s a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s s a m p l e , so

w h e t h e r E M l e d t o g r e a t e r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t r e a t m e n t is u n k n o w n .

F u t u r e r e s e a r c h s h o u l d e x a m i n e t h i s i s s u e .

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

FINN AND MUIRHEAD-STEVES 309

The results of this study should be interpreted as preliminary because of two notable shortcomings of t h e data. First, our treat- m e n t group and comparison group were not in t h e community dur- ing t h e exact same period. Thus, period effects could be operating (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 7). A b e t t e r approach to assessing w h e t h e r EM is effective at lowering recidivism would be to assign violent parolees randomly to EM and to standard parole supervi- sion within t h e same calendar y e a r and t h e n to compare return-to- prison rates for the two groups. This approach would ensure t h a t the two groups would experience similar historical events t h a t could influence their performance as parolees. However, given the premise t h a t t h e use of EM enhances public safety and the high- risk population involved, ethical issues prevent such a design from being implemented.

Another shortcoming of t h e study is the reliance on r e t u r n to prison as t h e key dependent variable. By using this measure, one overlooks other criminal behavior by parolees t h a t could be cap- t u r e d if data on arrests, convictions, incarceration in jail, probation terms, or violations of parole conditions were available. However, even these measures rely on an official reporting and recording the criminal behavior, which can create problems because such d a t a are particularly sensitive to policy shifts within the data-collecting agencies (Maltz, 1984). For example, parole officers m a y be in- structed to be lenient with t h e i r parolees i f t h e prisons are over- crowded or to be stringent if the parole agency h a s been u n d e r scrutiny because of negative publicity. The recidivism rates in these two situations would undoubtedly be different and might bear little relationship to a parolee's actual offending behavior. Thus, reliance on official data means t h a t our recidivism m e a s u r e is the product of two interrelated p h e n o m e n a - - t h e offender's underlying criminality and t h e system's ability to detect t h a t criminality and act on it (e.g., t h e probability of arrest).

Hence, with t h e shortcomings of t h e m e a s u r e of recidivism used and t h e different follow-up periods in mind, the findings of this s t u d y suggest t h a t EM has no d e t e r r e n t or rehabilitative effect on parolees' behavior, with the exception of its beneficial effects on sex offenders. How and w h y EM has positive effects on this sub- group of high-risk offenders needs to be examined in future re- search. However, overall, the findings call into question t h e utility of adding EM to the parole supervision of violent offenders. On the surface, EM does not appear to ensure greater community protec- tion, as m e a s u r e d by reducing t h e likelihood of r e t u r n to prison.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

310 ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF VIOLENT MALE PAROLEES

R E F E R E N C E S

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting in- teractions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Albonetti, C. A., & Hepburn, J. R. (1997). Probation revocation: A proportional hazards model of the conditioning effects of social disadvantage. Social Problems, 44, 124-138.

Allison, P. D. (1984). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Baumer, E. (1997). Levels and predictors of recidivism: The Malta experience. Crimi- nology, 35, 601-628.

Baumer, T. L., & Mendelsohn, R. I. (1992). Electronically monitored home confine- ment: Does it work? In J. M. Byrue, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence o f intermediate sanctions (pp. 54-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Beck, A. J., & Shipley, B. E. (1989). Recidivism o f prisoners l~eleased in 1983 (NCJ - 116261). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Beck, J., Klein-Saffran, J., & Wooten, H. B. (1990). Home confinement and the use of electronic monitoring with federal parolees. Federal Probation, 54(4), 22-33.

Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000a). Can electronic monitoring make a difference? An evaluation of three Canadian programs. Crime and Delin- quency, 46, 61-75.

Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000b). A quasi-experimental evalua- tion of an intensive rehabilitation program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312-329.

Brown, M. P., & Roy, S. (1995). Manual and electronic house arrest: An evaluation of factors related to failure. In J. O. Smykla & W. L. Selke (Eds.), Intermediate sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s (pp. 37-53). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Burke, P., Adams, L., & Becki, N. (1990). Policy for parole release and revocation. Longmont, CO: National I n s t i t u t e of Corrections.

Byrne, J. M., Lurigio, A. J., & Baird, M. A. (1989). The effectiveness of the new inten- sive supervision programs. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Research in corrections, 2(2), pp.l-48. Boulder, CO: National I n s t i t u t e of Corrections.

Cadigan, T. P. (1991). Electronic monitoring in federal pre-trial release. Federal Pro- bation, 55, 31-33.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental de- signs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Charles, M. T. (1989a). The development of a juvenile electronic monitoring pro- gram. Federal Probation, 53, 3-12.

Charles, M. T. (1989b). Electronic monitoring for juveniles. Journal o f Crime and Justice, 12, 147-169.

Chung, C. F., Schmidt, P., & Witte, A. D. (1991). Survival analysis: A survey. Jour- nal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 59-98.

Clarkson, J. S., & Weakland, J. J. (1991). A transitional ai~ercare model for juveniles: Adapting electronic monitoring and home confinement. Journal of Of- fender Monitoring, 4, 1-15.

Clear, T. (1994). Harm in American penology: Offenders, victims and their communi- ties. Albany: S t a t e University of New York Press.

Clear, T., & Braga, A. A. (1998). Challenges for corrections in the community. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole and intermediate sanctions (pp. 213-218). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cooprider, K. W., & Kerby, J. (1990). A practical application of electronic monitoring a t the p r e t r i a l stage. Federal Probation, 54, 28-35.

Courtright, K. E., Berg, B. L., & Mutchniek, R. J. (1997). The cost effectiveness of using house a r r e s t with electronic monitoring for d r u n k drivers. Federal Proba- tion, 61, 19-22.

Courtright, K. E., Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. J. (2000). Rehabilitation in the new machine? Exploring drug and alcohol use and variables related to success

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

F I N N AND MUIRHEAD-STEVES 311

among DUI offenders under electronic monitoring--Some preliminary out- comes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminol- ogy, 44, 293-311.

Davis, F., & Lockman, P. T. (1995). An alternative to incarceration: Juvenile home detention and electronic monitoring. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 23, 85- 89.

Davis, P. (2001, April 12). Shiffietts w a n t Va. held accountable in son's slaying: S t a t e failed to treat, monitor suspect, they say in claim. Washington Post, p. B1.

DeJong, C. (1997). Survival analysis and specific deterrence: Integrating theoretical and empirical models of recidivism. Criminology, 35, 561-575.

DiIulio, J. (1997). Reinventing parole and probation. Brookings Review, 15(2), 40-42. Dodgson, K., & Mortimer, E. (2000). Home detention: The first year o f operation

(Home Office Research Findings No. 110). London: Home Office. Eiserer, T. (1998). Parolee one of few under special supervision program. In Abilene

Reporter-News [On-line]. Available: http://www.reporternews.comAocal/parole 0621.html

Electronic tagging experiment successful [On-line]. (1999, F e b r u a r y 2). Available: http://www.minjust.nl:8080/c_actuaYpersber/pbl178.htm

Elrod, P., & Brown, M. P. (1996). Predicting public support for electronic house ar- rest: Results from a New York county survey. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 461-468.

Enos, R., Holman, J. E., & Carroll, M. E. (1999). Alternative sentencing: Electroni- cally monitored correctional supervision (2nd ed.). Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press.

Erwin, B. S. (1989). IPS with electronic monitoring option. Atlanta: Georgia Depart- ment of Corrections.

Gainey, R. R., Payne, B. K., & O'Toole, M. (2000). The relationship between time in jail, time on electronic monitoring, and recidivism: An event history analysis of a jail-based program. Justice Quarterly, 17, 733-752.

Greenfield, L. A. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault (NCJ -163392). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Gross, M. (1992). Electronic monitoring systems (EMS) in the pre-trial environment: Constitutionality, cost-effectiveness and other factors. Miami, FL: Metro-Dade D e p a r t m e n t of Justice Assistance.

Hofer, P. J., & Meierhoefer, B. S. (1987). Home confinement: A n evolving sanction in the federal criminal justice system. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.

Hoffman, P. B. (1983). Screening for risk: A revised Salient Factor Score (SFS 81). Journal o f Criminal Justice, 11, 539-547.

Larivee, J. J. (1993). Community p r o g r a m s - - A risky business. Corrections Today, 55(6), 20-26.

Lilly, R. J. (1995). Electronic monitoring in the U.S. In M. Tonry & K. Hamilton (Eds.), Intermediate sanctions in overcrowded times (pp. 112-115). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Lilly, R. J., Ball, R. A., Curry, G. D., & McMullen, J. (1993). Electronic monitoring of t h e d r u n k driver: A seven-year study of the home confinement alternative. Crime & Delinquency, 39, 462-484.

Lilly, R. J., Ball, R. A., Curry, G. D., & Smith, R. C. (1992). The Pride, Inc., Program: An evaluation of 5 years of electronic monitoring. Federal Probation, 56, 42-47.

LIS, Inc., & U.S. Department of Justice. (1995). Technology issues in corrections agencies: Results o f a 1995 survey. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Correc- tions Information Center.

MacKenzie, D. L. (1991). The parole performance of offenders released from shock incarceration (boot camp prisons): A survival time analysis. Journal of Quanti- tative Criminology, 7, 213-236.

Maltz, M. (1984). Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Maxfield, M. G., & Baumer, T. L. (1990). Home detention with electronic monitoring:

Comparing pre-trial and post-conviction programs. Crime & Delinquency, 36, 521-536.

Maxfield, M. G. & Baumer, T. L. (1992). Juvenile electronic monitoring: Assessment report. Evaluation Review, 16, 315-332.

McGargle, B. (1997). GEO INFO: Satellite tracking for house arrest IOn-line]. Availa- ble: http://www.govtech.net/magazine/gt/1997/may/may1997.geoinfo/may1997_ geoinfo.phtml

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1

312 ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF VIOLENT MALE PAROLEES

Montes, M. (1996). Technological advances in parole supervision. Corrections Today, 58, 88-91.

Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punish- ment in a rational sentencing system. New York: Oxfol<t University Press.

Palumbo, D. J., Clifford, M., & Snyder-Joy, Z. K. (1992). F r o m net widening to inter- mediate sanctions: The transformation of alternatives to incarceration from be- nevolence to malevolence. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 229-244). New- b u r y Park, CA: Sage.

Petersilia, J. (1998). Community corrections: Probation, parole and intermediate sanctions. New York: Oxford University Press.

P H D A m e r i t e c h . 1999. A b o u t o u r t e c h n o l o g y . I o n - l i n e ] A v a i l a b l e : http://homeconfinement.com]technology.htm

Pritchard, D. A. (1979). Stable predictors of recidivism: A summary. Criminology, 17, 15-21.

Raider, M. C. (1994). Juvenile electronic monitoring: A community based program to augment residential treatment. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 12, 37-48.

Roy, S. (1994). Electronic monitoring of juvenile offenders in Lake County, Indiana: An exploratory study. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 7, 1-8.

Roy, S. (1997). Five years of electronic monitoring of adults and juveniles in L a k e County, Indiana: A comparative study of factors related to failure. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20, 141-160.

Schmidt, A. K. (1986). Electronic monitors. Federal Probation, 50, 56-59. Schmidt, A. IC (1989). Electronic monitoring of offenders increases. Washington, DC:

National I n s t i t u t e of Justice. Schmidt, P., & Witte, A. (1988). Predicting recidivism using survival models. New

York: Springer-Verlag. Seglem, L. (1992). Beyond bucks and bars. State Legislatures, 18, 14-18. Sharp, D. (1997, September 3). Slipping off electronic shackles. USA Today, p. A4.2. State Board of Pardons and Paroles. (2000). Chapter 5 electronic monitoring field

operations manual. Atlanta, GA: Author. Tabachnick, B. G., & FideU, S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston:

AUyn & Bacon. Tonry, M. (1998a). Evaluating intermediate sanction programs. In J. Petersilia

(Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole and intermediate sanctions (pp. 79-96). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tonry, M. (1998b). Intermediate sanctions. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 683-711). New York: Oxford University Press.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). Correctional populations in the U.S., 1995 (NCJ 163926). Washington, DC: Author.

Whitfield, D. (1997). Tackling the tag: The electronic monitoring of offenders. Winchester, England: Waterside Press.

Whitlock, C. (1999, October 1). MD home-detention violations high; Reports under new s t a t e law show defendants missing 360 times in July. Washington Post, p. A01.

Zamble, E., & Quinsey, V. (1997). The criminal recidivism process. Oxford, England: Cambridge University Press.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

] a

t 11

:5 9

10 O

ct ob

er 2

01 1