This study examines variables associated with a) successful completion and b) recidivism of a cohort of offenders sentenced to a home incarceration program in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Results show that the majority of offenders do successfully complete the program, but that a majority are also re-arrested within 5 years of completion. Offenders most likely to successfully complete the period of supervision are older, serve longer sentences, are sentenced for multiple charges, accrue fewer technical violations, come from less criminogenic neighborhoods and are serving a sentence for a DUI-related offense. Significant predictors of rearrest include being sentenced for multiple charges, accruing fewer technical violations while under supervision, and being younger, male and African American.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ball, R. A.
, & Lilly, J. R. (1986). Theoretical examination of home incarceration. Federal Probation, 50(10), 17-24.
2.
Baumer, T. L.
, Maxfield, M. G., & Mendelsohn, R. I. (1993). A comparative analysis of three electronically monitored home detention programs. Justice Quarterly, 10(1), 121-142.
3.
Beck, J. L.
, Klein-Saffran, J., & Wooten, H. B. (1990). Home confinement and the use of electronic monitoring with federal parolees. Federal Probation, 54(4), 22-33.
4.
Blomberg, T. G.
, Waldo, G. P., & Burcroff, L. C. (1987). Home confinement and electronic surveillance. In B. R. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate punishments: Intensive supervision, home confinement and electronic surveillance (p. 169). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
5.
Brown, M. P.
, & Elrod, P. (1995). Electronic house arrest: An examination of citizen attitudes. Crime & Delinquency, 41(3), 332-346.
6.
Byrne, J. M.
, Lurigio, A. J., Baird, C., Markley, G., Cochran, D., & Buck, G. S. (1989). Effectiveness of the new intensive supervision programs. Research in Corrections, 2(2), 1-75.
7.
Cooprider, K. W.
, & Kerby, J. (1990). A practical application of electronic monitoring at the pretrial stage. Federal Probation, 54(1), 28-35.
8.
Courtright, K. E.
, Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. J. (1997a). The cost effectiveness of using house arrest with electronic monitoring for drunk drivers. Federal Probation, 61(3), 19-22.
9.
Courtright, K. E.
, Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. J.. (1997b). Effects of house arrest with electronic monitoring on DUI offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 24(3/4), 35-51.
10.
Durham, A. M.
(1994). Crisis and reform: Current issues in American punishment. Boston: Little, Brown.
11.
English, K.
, Chadwick, S. M., & Pullen, S. K. (1994). Colorado's intensive supervision probation: Report of findings. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
12.
English, K. K.
, & Mande, M. J. (1991). Empirical support for intervention strategies in community corrections. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 7(2), 95-106.
13.
Erwin, B. S.
(1990). Old and new tools for the modern probation officer. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 61-74.
14.
Fay, S. J.
(1993). The rise and fall of tagging as a criminal justice measure in Britain. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 21(4), 301-317.
15.
Gassaway, T.
(1989). Home incarceration is cost-effective. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 2(3), 1, 4-7.
16.
General Accounting Office
. (1993). Intensive probation supervision: Crime-control and cost-saving effectiveness. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
17.
Helm, B.
(1993). Jail policy committee population reports. Louisville, KY: Jefferson County Department of Corrections.
18.
Holman, J. E.
, & Quinn, J. F. (1990). Offender mental health status and electronic monitoring. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 3(4), 1-6.
19.
Holman, J. E
, & Quinn, J. F. (1992). Dysphoria and electronically monitored home confinement. Deviant Behavior, 13(1), 21-32.
20.
Jolin, A.
, & Stipak, B. (1992). Drug treatment and electronically monitored home confinement: An evaluation of a community-based sentencing option. Crime & Delinquency, 38(2), 158-170.
21.
Kuplinski, J. R.
(1990). Electronic offender monitoring in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Department of Criminal Justice Services.
22.
Lab, S. P.
(1992). Crime prevention: Approaches, practices, and evaluations (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
23.
Lilly, J. R.
, Ball, R. A., Curry, G. D., & McMullen, J. (1993). Electronic monitoring of the drunk driver: A seven-year study of the home confinement alternative. Crime & Delinquency, 39(4), 462-484.
24.
Lilly, J. R.
, 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(4), 42-47.
25.
Lilly, J. R.
, Ball, R. A., & Wright, J. (1987). Home incarceration with electronic monitoring in Kenton County, Kentucky: An evaluation. In B. R. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate punishments: Intensive supervision, home confinement and electronic surveillance (pp. 189-203). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
26.
Mainprize, S.
(1992). Electronic monitoring in corrections: Assessing cost effectiveness and the potential for widening the net of social control. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34(2), 161-180.
27.
Maxfield, M. G.
, & Baumer, T. L. (1990). Home detention with electronic monitoring: Comparing pretrial and postconviction programs. Crime & Delinquency, 36(4), 521-536.
28.
Maxfield, M. G.
, & Baumer, T. L. (1992). Pretrial home detention with electronic monitoring. Evaluation Review, 16(3), 315-332.
29.
McCarthy, B. R.
(1987). Intermediate punishments: Intensive supervision, home confinement and electronic surveillance. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
30.
Payne, J.
(1989). Home incarceration: An alternative to jail overcrowding. Large Jails Network Bulletin, 1(2), 19.
31.
Quinn, J. F.
, & Holman, J. E. (1991a). The efficacy of electronically monitored home confinement as a case management device. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 7(2), 128-134.
32.
Quinn, J. F.
, & Holman, J. E. (1991b). Purpose versus practice in the use of electronically monitored home confinement. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 15(1), 157-171.
33.
Renzema, M.
(1992). Home confinement programs: Development, implementation, and impact. In J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 41-53). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
Roy, S.
(1995). Juvenile offenders in an electronic home detention program: A study on factors related to failure. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 8(2), 9-17.
35.
Roy, S.
(1997). Five years of electronic monitoring of adults and juveniles in Lake County, Indiana: A comparative study on factors related to failure. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(1), 141-160.
36.
Schmidt, A. K.
, & Curtis, C. E. (1987). Electronic monitors. In B. R. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate punishments: Intensive supervision, home confinement and electronic surveillance (pp. 137-152). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
37.
Selzer, M. L.
, & Barton, E. (1977). The drunken driver: A psychosocial study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2, 239-253.
38.
Somander, L.
(1995). Year of intensive supervision with electronic monitoring: Results for the period August 1994-July 1995. Norrkoeping, Sweden: Sweden National Prison and Probation Administration.
39.
Turner, S.
, Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. P. (1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 539-556.
40.
Vaughn, J. B.
(1987). Planning for change: The use of monitoring as a correctional alternative. In B. R. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate punishments: Intensive supervision, home confinement and electronic surveillance (pp. 153-168). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
41.
Vingilis, E. R.
(1983). Drinking drivers and alcoholics: Are they from the same population? In R. G. Smart, F. Glaser, Y. Israel, H. Kalant, R. E. Popham, & W. Schmidte (Eds.), Research advances in alcohol and drug problems (Vol. 7, pp. 299-342). New York: Plenum.
42.
von Hirsch, A.
(1990). The ethics of community-based sanctions. Crime & Delinquency, 36(1), 162-173.
43.
Whittington, M.
(1986). Adult home detention as an alternative to incarceration. Orange County, CA: Orange County Probation Department.
