This study analyses the recidivism-reducing effect of electronic monitoring (EM) in the context of early work release and home detention as a means of release preparation. We tested the hypothesis that EM reduces recidivism after the termination of EM. The results are based on a randomized controlled trial in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, where a pilot project between 2010 and 2012 enabled different forms of EM. The participating prisoners were randomly assigned either to the experimental group under EM or to the control group, whose participants had to continue their regular sentence behind prison walls. Qualitative data and data of a matched-pair sample complement the analyses. There was no statistical significant difference between the recidivism rates of the EM and control group subjects.
AndersenLHAndersenSN (2012) Losing the Stigma of Incarceration. Does Serving a Sentence with Electronic Monitoring Causally Improve Post-release Labor Market Outcomes?Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.
2.
AndersenSNTelleK (2016) Electronic monitoring and recidivism. Quasi-experimental evidence from Norway. Statistics Norway, Research Department, August.
3.
AndrewsDABontaJ (1998) Level of Service Inventory – Revised. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
4.
ArmstrongGSFreemanBC (2011) Examining GPS monitoring alerts triggered by sex offenders: The divergence of legislative goals and practical application in community corrections. Journal of Criminal Justice39(2): 175–182.
5.
BalesWMannKBlombergTGaesGBarrickKDhunganaKMcManusB (2010) A quantitative and qualitative assessment of electronic monitoring. Florida State University, Tallahassee, January.
6.
BartonSMRoyS (2008) Convicted drunk drivers in an electronic monitoring program: A preliminary study. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences3(1): 28–43.
7.
BoehmA (1996) Die spezialpräventiven Wirkungen der strafrechtlichen Sanktionen. In: JehleJM (ed.) Kriminalprävention und Strafjustiz. Wiesbaden: Kriminologische Zentralstelle, 263–290.
8.
BontaJWallace-CaprettaSRooneyJ (1999) Electronic Monitoring in Canada. Solicitor General Canada.
9.
BottosS (2007) An Overview of Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: The Issues and Implications. Correctional Service Canada.
10.
BushJMooreMW (2001) Recidivism report. Florida Department of Corrections, May.
11.
ClemmerD (1958) The Prison Community. Boston: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
12.
CornishDClarkeRVG (1986) The Reasoning Criminal. Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, Tokyo: Springer.
13.
DeucharR (2012) The impact of curfews and electronic monitoring on the social strains, support and capital experienced by youth gang members and offenders in the west of Scotland. Criminology and Criminal Justice12(2): 113–128.
14.
FallesenPAndersenLH (2017) Explaining the consequences of imprisonment for union formation and dissolution in Denmark. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management36(1): 154–177.
15.
FarringtonDP (1988) Advancing knowledge about the onset of delinquency and crime. In: LaheyBKazdinAE (eds) Advances in Clinical Child Psychology. Boston: Springer, 283–342.
16.
FarringtonDP (2003) British randomized experiments on crime and justice. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science589(1): 150–167.
17.
FelsonMClarkeRV (1998) Opportunity Makes the Thief. London: Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
18.
FinnMMuirhead-StevesS (2002) The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees. Justice Quarterly19(2): 293–312.
19.
GaineyRPayneB (2000) Understanding the experience of house arrest with electronic monitoring. An analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology44(1): 84–96.
20.
GendreauPLittleTGogginC (1996) A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology34(4): 575–607.
21.
GiesSVGaineyRCohenMIHealyEDuplantierDYeideMBekelmanABobnisAHoppsM (2012) Monitoring High-Risk Sex Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program. Final Report. Bethesda, MD: Development Services Group.
22.
GoffmanE (1981) Asyle. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
23.
GottfredsonMHirschiT (1990) A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
HakanssonABerglundM (2012) Risk factors for criminal recidivism – a prospective follow-up study in prisoners with substance use. BMC Psychiatry201212: 111–118.
25.
HansonRK (2009) The psychological assessment of risk for crime and violence. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne50: 172–182.
26.
HenneguelleAMonneryBKenseyA (2016) Better at home than in prison? The effects of electronic monitoring on recidivism in France. Journal of Law and Economics59(3): 629–667.
27.
HirschiT (1986) On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. In: CornishDBClarkeRV (eds) The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer, 105–118.
28.
HirschiTGottfredsonM (1983) Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology (89)3: 552–584.
29.
HucklesbyA (2008) Vehicles of desistance? The impact of electronically monitored curfew orders. Criminology and Criminal Justice8(1): 51–71.
30.
HucklesbyA (2009) Understanding offenders’ compliance: A case study of electronically monitored curfew orders. Journal of Law and Society36(2): 248–271.
31.
JehleJMAlbrechtHJHohmann-FrickeSTetalC (2016) Legalbewährung nach strafrechtlichen Sanktionen. Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg GmbH.
32.
KilliasMGillieronGKisslingIVillettazP (2010) Community service versus electronic monitoring – What works better?British Journal of Criminology50(6): 1155–1170.
33.
KornhauserRLasterK (2014) Punitiveness in Australia. Electronic monitoring vs the prison. Crime, Law and Social Change62(4): 445–474.
34.
LarsenBØ (2017) Educational outcomes after serving with electronic monitoring. Results from a natural experiment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology33(1): 157–178.
35.
LoomanJAbracenJ (2011) Substance abuse among high-risk sexual offenders: Do measures of lifetime history of substance abuse add to the prediction of recidivism over actuarial risk assessment instruments?Journal of Interpersonal Violence26(4): 683–700.
36.
MacKenzieDL (2006) What Works in Corrections? Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
McKnightASFellJCAuld-OwensA (2012) Transdermal Alcohol Monitoring: Case Studies. Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
38.
MarklundFHolmbergS (2009) Effects of early release from prison using electronic tagging in Sweden. Journal of Experimental Criminology5(1): 41–61.
National Institute of Justice (2011) Electronic monitoring reduces recidivism. U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 234460.
41.
NellisM (1991) The electronic monitoring of offenders in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology31(2): 165–185.
42.
NellisM (2015) Standards and Ethics in Electronic Monitoring. Handbook for Professionals Responsible for the Establishment and the Use of Electronic Monitoring. Council of Europe, June.
43.
PadgettKBalesWBlombergT (2006) Under surveillance. An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy5(1): 61–91.
44.
PayneBK (2014) It’s a small world, but I wouldn’t want to paint it: Learning from Denmark’s experience with electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy13(3): 381–391.
45.
PérezADennisRJJackyFARondónMALópezA (2002) Use of the mean, hot deck and multiple imputation techniques to predict outcome in intensive care unit patients in Colombia. Statistics in Medicine21(24): 3885–3896.
46.
PetersiliaJTurnerS (1990) Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers. Early results from an experiment in California. Crime & Delinquency36(1): 87–111.
47.
RenzemaM (2003) Electronic monitoring’s impact on reoffending. Review. Department of Criminal Justice and Social Work, Kutztown University, March.
48.
RenzemaMMayo-WilsonE (2005) Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders?Journal of Experimental Criminology1(2): 215–237.
49.
SampsonR (2010) Gold Standard Myths: Observations on the Experimental Turn in Quantitative Criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology26(4): 489-500.
SchwedlerAWoessnerG (2017) Identifying the rehabilitative potential of electronically monitored release preparation. A randomized controlled study in Germany. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology61(8): 839–856.
52.
TetalC (2018) Die Wirkung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen auf die Legalbewährung. In: WalshMPniewskiBKoberMAmborstA (eds) Evidenzorientierte Kriminalprävention in Deutschland. Ein Leitfaden für Politik und Praxis. Berlin: Springer, 533–556.
53.
VanhaelemeeschDVander BekenTVandeveldeS (2014) Punishment at home. European Journal of Criminology11(3): 273–287.
54.
WesternBKingJRWeimanDF (2001) The labor market consequences for incarceration. Crime & Delinquency47(3): 410–427.
55.
WheelerS (1961) Socialization in correctional communities. American Sociological Review26(5): 697–712.
56.
YehS (2010) Cost–benefit analysis of reducing crime through electronic monitoring of parolees and probationers. Journal of Criminal Justice38(5): 1090–1096.
57.
ZimringFEHawkinsG (1995) Incapacitation. New York: Oxford University Press.
