The concept of surrogate homes shows promise in overcoming some of the reliability and validity problems of electronic monitoring. Not only is there the capability of double-checking potentially spurious electronic signals, but the surrogate home family can provide information on the activity of the parolee as well. Because of the active participation of surrogate home members in the PATH program, technical and equipment problems were greatly decreased. Initial results from the PATH program suggest that the combination of monitoring and surrogate homes may even be effective for drug-using parole violators, a category of offender with notoriously high recidivism rates.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ball, R. and Lilly, J.R. (1983). Home incarceration: An alternative to total incarceration . Paper presented at the IX International Congress on Criminology, Vienna.
2.
Ball, R. and Lilly, J.R. (1986). A theoretical examination of home incarceration . Federal Probation, 50, 17-24.
3.
Ball, R.A., Huff, C.R., and Lilly, J.R. (1984). House arrest and correctional policy: Doing time at home. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
4.
Blomberg, T.G., Waldo, G.P., and Burcroft, L.C. (1987). Home confinement and electronic surveillance. In B. R. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate punishments: Intensive supervision, home confinement and electronic surveillance . Monsey, NJ: Criminal Justice Press .
5.
Chaiken, M.R. and Johnson, B.D. (1988). Characteristics of different types of drug-involved offenders. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
6.
Corbett, R.P. and Fersch, E.A.L. (1985). Home as prison: The use of house arrest," Federal Probation, 49, 13-17.
7.
Empey, L.T. (1967). Alternatives to incarceration. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health, Education,and Welfare.
8.
Friel, C.M. and Vaughn, J.B. (1986). A consumer's guide to the electronic surveillance of probationers. Federal Probation, 2,3-14.
9.
Gable, R.K. (1986). Application of personal telemonitoring to current problems in corrections. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 167-176.
10.
Glaser, D. (1973). Correction of adult offenders in the community . In, L. E. Ohlin (Ed.), Prisoners in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11.
Ingraham, B.L. and Smith, G.W. (1972). Use of electronics in observation and control of human behavior. Issues in Criminology, 7,35-53.
12.
Marx, G.T. (1985). The new surveillance. Technology Review, 88, 42-48.
13.
Pontell, H.N. (1984). A capacity to punish: The ecology of crime and punishment. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
14.
Scull, A.T. (1977). Decarceration: Community treatment and the deviant: A radical view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
15.
Schwitzgebel, R.K. (1967). Electronic innovation in behavioral sciences: A call to responsibility. American Psychologist, 22, 364-370.
16.
Shichor, D. (1987). Penal policies: Some recent trends. Legal Studies Forum, XI, 55-78.
17.
Vaughn, J.B. (1987). Planning for change: The use of electronic monitoring as a correctional alternative. In B. R. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate Punishments: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement and Electronic Surveillance. Monsey, NJ : Criminal Justice Press, pp. 153-168.
18.
Wiggenhorn, A.H. (1989). Prison alternative training home program: First annual progress report. Unpublished manuscript. California Department of Correction, Parole and Community Services Division, Indio/Victorville Unit.
