Program Profile: Electronic Monitoring (Florida)

This program involves using systems based radio frequency or global positioning system technology to monitor convicted persons’ locations and movements in community-based settings. The goal is to increase compliance and reduce recidivism. This program is rated Promising. Compared with the control group, who were on other forms of community supervision, the treatment group using electronic monitoring showed statistically significant reductions in the risk of failure to comply.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Population

The Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) approved the use of Electronic Monitoring (EM) in 1987 to track convicted persons, to increase compliance with the terms of their release into the community, and to thereby reduce recidivism. Increasingly, the use of EM targets people convicted of sex and/or violent offenses. As of June 2009, 2,392 of Florida’s 143,191 convicted persons under community supervision were being monitored through EM.

Program Description

EM has emerged as an important tool around the Nation in the handling of convicted persons, particularly persons convicted of sex offenses. According to the most recent Interstate Commission on Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS 2006) GPS Government Survey, 23 States currently have some type of GPS monitoring program for people convicted of sex offenses. Florida was an early adopter of the technology, with its legislature approving the use of EM in 1987. In 2005, the Jessica Lunsford Act (JLA) was signed into law in Florida, introducing new provisions and increased penalties, including that a certain amount of these people be subject to EM for life. The JLA also included appropriations to increase the number of EM units available. As a result, the number of convicted persons monitored by EM roughly tripled, to reach 2,392 as of June 2009.

The first type of EM adopted—introduced into the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) in 1988 for persons sentenced to house arrest—was a radio frequency (RF) system. This type of unit can be used to indicate whether a person on house arrest is at home. The equipment consists of a tamper-resistant small transmitter worn by the convicted person. The transmitter communicates with a small receiving unit tied into the phone landline. The receiving unit notifies a monitoring station if the signal is lost; if so, the probation officer is notified. RF systems can be programmed to take work or religious schedules into account allowing convicted persons to be off-site at predetermined times. Officers can also use a "drive by" monitoring device to verify the location of the convicted persons, whether at home, at work, or in treatment as scheduled. An RF unit costs about $1.97 per day (Bales et al. 2010). A decreasing number of convicted persons in Florida are tracked through RF systems, dropping to 99 in FY 2008–09 (Bales et al. 2010).

The second system, active GPS monitoring, was introduced into use in 1997. This technology depends on a network of satellites to triangulate the individual’s physical location. The equipment consists of a tamper-resistant bracelet worn by the convicted persons and a tracking device carried by the individual. The tracking device uses transmissions received from the satellites to calculate the convicted person’s position and transmits the data to a monitoring center through a cell phone system. This information is transmitted in a slightly different fashion by passive and active GPS systems. The passive GPS system stores and transmits data at appointed times to the monitoring center. In contrast, the active GPS system transmits information in near “real time” on the individual’s location to the monitoring center. This near real-time transmission allows the center to alert the probation officer immediately when a violation occurs. Both GPS systems can be modified so that certain zones are excluded (such as schools or other places where children congregate) or included (such as a work zone). They also provide information on where an individual has been throughout the course of the day and when the person was at the different locations. The passive GPS system costs about $4.00 per day (Florida Senate Committee on Criminal Justice 2004); the active system costs about $8.94 per day (Bales et al. 2010). While the active GPS equipment is the more expensive of the two, the total cost of operating the passive GPS equipment is almost double that of the active GPS system when staff costs are included. Florida stopped using the passive GPS in 2006 because of cost considerations (NIJ 2011). All of Florida DOC offenders are monitored with active GPS units.

Those placed on EM can be required to reimburse FDOC for the costs of the EM equipment. They can be charged with violation of probation conditions for nonpayment of fees as imposed by the court. The department also has the right to charge them for damaged equipment.

Study

Bales and colleagues (2010) used a mixed methods approach to examine the impact of electronic monitoring (EM). The treatment sample consisted of more than 5,000 medium- and high-risk people who were placed on EM at some point in their community supervision (low-risk persons were excluded from the sample); a control group comprised more than 266,000 medium- and high-risk individuals not placed on EM over a 6-year period. The majority of the sample of convicted persons was male and white, with ages ranging from 14 to over 38 years. Current offenses included sex offenses, robbery, burglary, and other violent offenses.

The primary outcome of interest was risk of failure while under community supervision. If someone was revoked for any reason (regardless of whether they were later reincarcerated), they were considered failures. Revocation of supervision could have been due to a technical violation of supervision or from a misdemeanor or felony arrest. Data was collected for the period of June 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007 from the Florida Department of Corrections Offender-Based Information System. Propensity score matching was used to develop equivalency in the EM and non–EM groups to avoid selection bias. Cox proportional hazards routines were used to analyze data, and the propensity score was used as an inverse weight.

For the qualitative component, researchers conducted interviews with a convenience sample of 36 probation officers, 20 administrators, and 105 convicted persons who were invited to participate in the project during their regularly scheduled office visits. The authors also conducted subgroup analyses on types of offenders (sex, property, drug, and violent), types of supervision (e.g., community control, sex offender probation, felony probation, or conditional release supervision), and age.

Bales and colleagues (2010) reported that the annual cost to Florida of the radio frequency (RF) system was $719 and the cost of the active GPS equipment and services was $3,263. Per day costs for RF electronic monitoring systems declined by 15.8 percent between 2005 and 2008. Per day costs for GPS systems remained stable from 2005 to 2008, but the 2008 costs included monitoring center services that were unavailable before 2007.

Subgroup Analysis

Bales and colleagues (2010) found that electronic monitoring (EM) had a greater impact on sex, property, drug, and other types of offenders, compared with violent offenders. This difference was statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences in the effects of EM across different age groups or different types of supervision.

To understand the perceptions of those involved with EM, the authors also conducted interviews with probation officers and administrators involved in overseeing EM programs and those on EM, as well as those being monitored with EM. Administrators reported viewing EM as a tool for probation officers, and not as a substitute for personal contact. These individuals and officers differed in their perceptions of how EM affected the likelihood of absconding. Eighty-five percent reported that EM did not affect their likelihood of absconding, whereas 58 percent of officers thought that EM reduced the risk of absconding. Most of those interviewed reported that EM affected participants’ lives in negative ways. Forty-three percent and 89 percent of officers reported that EM had a negative impact on the their families. They also reported feeling a sense of shame and unfair stigmatization because, in large part, of EM’s association with those convicted of sex offenses. Almost all participants and officers reported that they believe that EM makes it difficult for them to find and keep a job. However, EM did not affect the ability of offenders to find housing. In addition, despite the negative drawbacks associated with EM, most offenders (88.4 percent) reported preferring EM to incarceration.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Florida Senate Committee on Criminal Justice. 2004. “Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology Use in Monitoring the Activities of Probationers.” In The Florida Senate Interim Project Report 2005–126 . Tallahassee, Fla.

(ICAOS) Interstate Commission on Adult Offender Supervision. 2006. 2006 GPS Supervision Update .

(NIJ) National Institute of Justice. 2011. “Electronic Monitoring Reduces Recidivism.” NIJ In Short: Toward Criminal Justice Solutions. NCJ 234460.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Treatment for Adults Who Have Committed Sex Offenses

A variety of psychological interventions, cognitive–behavioral treatments, and behavioral therapies targeting adults convicted of sex offenses with the overall aim of reducing the risk and potential harm associated with releasing this population back into the community. The practice is rated Promising for reducing rates of general recidivism and sexual recidivism but rated Ineffective on violent recidivism rates.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Sex-related offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?