Electronic Monitoring
in
Canada
James Bonta
|
|
Suzanne Wallace-Capretta
|
|
|
|
|
Jennifer Rooney
|
|
Solicitor General Canada
May 1999
Public Works and Government Services Canada 1999
Cat No. JS4-1/1999-01
ISBN 0-662-64255-4
Acknowledgements
A number of people deserve recognition for their contribution toward the
successful completion of this evaluation project. Without their on-going
cooperation this report would not have been possible.
First, our thanks to Diana Doherty, Tyson Sawchuck and Nadina Ouaida who
were the principal research contractors in this project. From British
Columbia, we would like to extend our appreciation to Brian Mason, Jim
Cairns, Robert Watts, Tim Trytten, Karen Abrahamson, Matt Lang, Mark
Coleman, Doug Godfrey, Dudley Mathieson, Al Riou and the staff from the
EMP offices and Correctional Centres. As well, we would like to express
our appreciation to Terry Lang, Rhonda Everson, Dana Wilkins, Bonnie
Boulding, Carol Fiedelleck, Peter Guenther, Palmer Svaren, Wanita Koczka,
Eileen Gorman, Karen Rust and the staff from Saskatchewan Community
Corrections offices and Correctional Centres. Thanks to Marvin McNutt,
Wanda Lundrigan, John Scoville, Mary Ennis, George Head, Bernardus
Stroomer, Tom Mahoney as well as, the Probation, Institution and LRP
staff in Newfoundland. Finally, thanks to Kevin McAnoy for his help
coding the recidivism data.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements *
Executive Summary *
Chapter I. Introduction *
The Promise of Technology for Effective Offender Supervision *
Does EM Widen the Net? *
Does EM Reduce Recidivism? *
A Cost-Effective Alternative? *
The Role of Treatment *
Chapter II. The Three Provincial EM Programs *
Data Collection Methodology *
Newfoundland: Highlights from the Interim Report (April, 1998) *
Saskatchewan: Highlights from the Interim Report (January, 1998) *
British Columbia: Highlights from the Interim Report (April, 1997) *
Chapter III. Client Selection and Program Processes *
The EM Offenders *
Program Processes *
Chapter IV. Program Effectiveness *
What Factors Relate to Program Success? *
Recidivism *
The Effectiveness of Sanctions: EM vs Probation vs Prison *
The Newfoundland Treatment Program *
Chapter V. General Summary and Conclusions *
References *
Executive Summary
Electronic monitoring (EM) is a relatively recent innovation intended to
enhance compliance with house arrest. Offenders are placed under
community supervision with the condition that they stay in their homes
with some exceptions to attend work or other legitimate activities.
Electronic monitoring equipment, often in the form of bracelets worn
about the ankle, emit signals to a computer within the correctional
agency ensuring knowledge about the offender's whereabouts. The goals of
electronic monitoring programs vary. Some programs seek a less costly
diversion of offenders from imprisonment and others look to reduce the
risk of re-offending.
EM programs were first established in the United States in the 1980s and
their use has spread to other countries around the world. In Canada, EM
programs are in operation in four provinces. The present evaluation
focused on EM in three provinces: British Columbia (B.C.), Saskatchewan
and Newfoundland. Although the three provinces used similar equipment,
how the programs operated varied across location. Two of the programs
(B.C. and Newfoundland) are corrections based, selecting sentenced
inmates from area prisons. The EM program in Saskatchewan is court based
where the judge places offenders on probation with a condition of
electronic monitoring. Differences also exist in terms of supervision and
treatment requirements. EM offenders in B.C. are supervised by
institutional correctional officers while probation officers provide the
supervision in the other provinces. In Newfoundland, EM offenders are
required to attend an intensive treatment program offered in the
community.
Many of the evaluations reported in the literature are plagued by the
lack of adequate comparison groups and controls for offender risk and
needs. As a result, there is evidence suggesting that many EM programs
widen the correctional net. That is, they target relatively low risk
offenders who would function well without the additional controls imposed
by EM. The present evaluation not only used comparison groups of inmates
and probationers, but also introduced controls for offender risk. Thus,
we were in a position to investigate the impact of EM, and treatment, on
offender recidivism.
Whether the EM program was corrections or court based, there was no
relationship to program completion. Successful completion of EM ranged
from 86% to 89% across the three provinces. Although the general type of
EM program was not important in terms of program completion, it did have
an effect on how offenders and staff viewed EM. Offenders who were
supervised by probation officers had more favourable views of the staff
than the offenders supervised by correctional officers. EM offenders from
all three sites also felt that EM benefited them and that the program
would prevent them from returning to crime. On the other hand, staff was
quite sceptical of the program and its impact on offenders.
The longer term impact of EM was evaluated using one year,
post-conviction information. Comparisons with inmates and probationers,
after controlling for offender risk and needs, found that EM had no
effect on recidivism. That is, the recidivism rates were comparable for
all three groups. Considering that the EM offenders and probationers had
similar recidivism rates, the results support the conclusion that EM
programs tend to have a net-widening effect. The one potential benefit of
EM was that it appeared to enhance attendance in treatment. In
Newfoundland, offenders who were on EM were more likely to stay in
treatment than probationers without an EM condition.
The general offender rehabilitation literature strongly suggests that
structured, cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation programs are effective
in reducing recidivism. The compulsory treatment program required for EM
offenders in Newfoundland was independently evaluated and found to be a
promising treatment program. An effect for treatment was found when
considering the risk levels of the offenders. That is, for the higher
risk offenders who received treatment the recidivism rate was 31.6%. For
the high risk offenders who did not receive treatment that rate was
51.1%.
There are two general findings that have important implications for
policy and practice. First, we found no evidence that EM has a more
significant impact on recidivism than the less intrusive, and less
costly, correctional measure of probation. Thus, the "value added" of EM
programs appears limited. Second, cognitive-behavioural treatment
programming targeting higher risk offenders (not necessarily the highest
risk) was associated with significant reductions in offender recidivism.
Continued support of treatment programs for higher risk offenders,
perhaps married with EM to increase treatment attendance, is suggested.
Chapter I. Introduction
During the 1980s and early 1990s, like many countries, Canada experienced
significant prison population growth. Between 1989 and 1995, the prison
population grew by 22% in federal penitentiaries and 12% in provincial
prisons (Canada, 1996). Internationally, Canada imprisons 129 individuals
per 100,000 population. Although this rate is less than that of the
United States (645/100,000), it is higher than the rates found in many
European countries. For example, the incarceration rate in Norway was 84
per 100,000 in 1996 (Canada, 1998). Concerns over high incarceration
rates and their associated costs have spurred many governments to seek
ways to decrease prison populations or at least manage their growth.
Numerous suggestions have been made, and tried, in attempts to manage
correctional population growth. They range from decriminalising certain
acts to noncarceral sentencing options. Over the past two decades,
governments have intensified their search for effective alternatives to
incarceration. One relatively recent innovation has been the electronic
monitoring of offenders in the community.
The Promise of Technology for Effective Offender
Supervision
The first report of the use of electronic monitoring in the supervision
of an offender was in 1984. Apparently inspired by a Spiderman cartoon,
Judge Jack Love from New Mexico ordered the placement of an electronic
device on the ankle of an offender to ensure his whereabouts (Fox, 1987).
Essentially, electronic monitoring (EM) began as a method to enforce
house arrest because it permitted the monitoring of the offender from a
remote location. Today, the technology allows a number of options for
monitoring the offender. A computer can dial the telephone in an
offender's home at random intervals in order to confirm his/her location.
An alarm can sound if the offender strays out of range from the base unit
in the home. Video cameras can be mounted near the telephone to verify
visual contact and offenders can even provide breathalyser tests to
ensure compliance with drug and alcohol abstinence conditions. The role
of the private sector in providing the technology and the inherent
competition for business will undoubtedly bring new possibilities.
Early uses of EM were limited to the monitoring and supervision of
probationers. However, by 1989 probationers represented only one-quarter
of the clientele. The majority of offenders in EM programs were inmates
for whom EM offered a less costly sanction than incarceration. The use of
EM has grown significantly. A 1989 U.S. survey (Renzema & Skelton,
1990) found 37 states using EM with 6,490 offenders on the program on any
given day. The United Kingdom and other European countries have also
introduced EM (Mortimer & May, 1997).
The first Canadian use of EM was in British Columbia (British Columbia
Corrections Branch, 1995). It began as a pilot program in Vancouver
(1987) and it was intended to provide a less costly alternative to
incarceration for selected offenders. By 1992, EM was available
throughout the province except in the most sparsely populated areas. In
1996, the EM program managed 300 offenders on an average day. Early
reports of the program suggested that it produced a cost savings
(compared to incarceration) and that it provided a number of benefits to
the offender (Mainprize, 1992, 1995).
Undoubtedly, the British Columbia experience influenced other provinces.
EM programs were introduced in Saskatchewan in 1990 and Newfoundland in
1994. The Yukon Territory has EM as an option, but it has never been
used. More recently Ontario introduced an EM program in 1996. Ontario had
earlier experimented with EM in 1989 but abandoned the program partly
because an evaluation found it not to be cost-effective.
Does EM Widen the Net?
The original intention of EM was to enforce house arrest. Gradually it
became a community-based alternative to incarceration. That is, offenders
who would normally be imprisoned could instead be placed into an EM
program. One of the major issues in any alternative to incarceration
program is the possibility that the offenders given the "new" alternative
would have received a community sanction were it not for the program
(Nuffield, 1997). Consequently, the alternative sanction would not
represent a true alternative. Rather, it would actually increase
the costs of corrections.
A cursory review of the characteristics of offenders and program
eligibility criteria reveals a portrait of an alternative program that
seems to target relatively low risk offenders (see Table 1). Most
programs exclude offenders who have a record of violence, which is
understandable considering public sentiment. However, there are
additional and sometimes, stringent screening criteria. For example, some
programs deal almost exclusively with offenders convicted of impaired
driving offences (Lilly et al., 1992; McGowan, 1988). The eligibility
criteria often screen out from EM programs many offenders. For example,
of 1,088 referrals, only 216 (19.9%) were accepted into the EM program in
Marion County, Indiana (Maxfield, & Baumer, 1990). Similarly, the
pilot EM project in Ontario accepted 28.6% of the 552 inmates referred to
the program.
Table 1. Characteristics of EM Participants
Study
|
Selection Criteria
|
Ball et al. (1988)
|
"approved by presentence investigation...each inmate have a good
record"
|
|
|
Baumer et al. (1993): a) post-conviction
|
Nonviolent, "suspendable" offences
|
b) pretrial
|
Minor, nonviolent offences
|
c) juveniles
|
Eligible for probation/suspended sentence
|
|
|
Denton (1988)
|
Employed, DWI and attending counselling
|
|
|
Lilly et al. (1992)
|
91.5% DWI and traffic offences
|
|
|
Maxfield & Baumer (1990)
|
Nonviolent, no parole violators or offenders showing "irresponsible
behavior"
|
|
|
McGowan (1988)
|
88% DWI offences
|
|
|
Nee (1990)
|
Police and prosecutor selected eligible cases
|
|
|
Ontario (1991)
|
Low risk offenders
|
|
|
Rogers & Jolin (1989)
|
98% nonviolent offenders
|
|
|
Roy (1997)
|
"stringent and limited to those who have strong family support"
|
|
|
Whittington (1987)
|
80% DWI, "stable residence and employment", "selected lowest risk"
|
Defenders of EM have argued that these programs must begin with low risk
offenders in order to gain public credibility. Once the program is
established as a viable option, then it could expand to include higher
risk offenders for whom EM is a true alternative to incarceration. The
evidence on changes in offender profile with time is unconvincing. To
illustrate, Pride, Inc. is one of the largest and longest running EM
programs in the world. Lilly, Ball, Curry and McMullen (1993) examined
changes in the types of offenders who went through the program over a
seven year period. There was a decrease in the proportion of DWI
offenders (from 67.4% to 53.7%), but this was offset by an increase in
offenders convicted of driving under suspension (24.5% to 53.7%).
Overall, traffic and liquor offenders comprised 94.2% of the EM
participants at the beginning of the program and 91.7% seven years later.
To summarise, the prevalence of low risk offenders in the EM programs
described in the literature suggest a net-widening effect. There is very
little evidence that EM has provided a true alternative to incarceration.
If this is true in the general case, then these findings also have
implications for the cost-effectiveness issue discussed later in this
report.
Does EM Reduce Recidivism?
As with most criminal justice sanctions, there is the expectation that a
reduction in re-offending will occur. Evaluating the impact of EM
programs on recidivism has been extremely problematic. First of all, to
the best of our knowledge, there are only three studies that approximate
an experimental methodology with random assignment (Cullen, Wright, &
Applegate, 1996). Secondly, there are very few evaluations with
appropriate comparison groups. The majority of reports on EM are limited
to descriptions of outcome without any comparison groups. The results
from these reports are difficult to interpret since so many of the
programs deal with low risk offenders (Table 1). Thus, the high program
completion and low recidivism rates reported by these studies may simply
reflect the low risk nature of the offenders and not the impact of the
program - Petersilia's (1988) "cream puff" factor.
Table 2 presents the results of studies that report any outcome
data. We are quite generous here, including studies that have
questionable comparisons and outcome measures. Unfortunately, with
respect to the recidivism results, none of the studies specified the
length of follow-up preventing any meaningful interpretation of this
information. This summary sketch serves to highlight the poor
methodological quality of most EM evaluations. The table also highlights
another major problem with interpreting the success of EM. It is the
problem of short program duration. In most EM programs, the offenders
participate for periods of less than three months. For example, McGowan
(1988) found an average stay of 36 days in EM. In the Pride program
(Lilly et al., 1992), 78% of the offenders were serving sentences of less
than three months. Such short stays increase the likelihood that even
higher risk offenders may complete the program without incident. Thus,
for a number of reasons, the high program success rates are misleading
and difficult to interpret.
Table 2. Program Completion and Recidivism Outcome on EM
Study
|
Subjects
|
Days
on EM
|
Success
Rate (%)
|
Recidivism
Rate (%)
|
Ball et al. (1988)
|
39 pre-jail
|
44
|
92.3
|
5.1
|
|
87 post-jail
|
55
|
70.1
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baumer et al. (1993)
|
219 pretrial
|
76
|
73.1
|
|
|
78 postconviction
|
56
|
80.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beck et al. (1990)
|
357 parolees
|
126
|
87.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lilly et al. (1992)
|
415 probationers
|
48% < 30
|
97.0
|
11.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lilly et al. (1993)
|
Not reported
|
76.2
|
91.3
|
17.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maxfield & Baumer (1990)
|
216 bailees
|
90 days <
|
73.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
153 parolees
|
90 days <
|
81.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortimer & May (1997)
|
375 "curfews"
|
126
|
87.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ontario (1991)
|
158 inmates
|
44
|
88.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Renzema & Skelton (1990)
|
1,296 mixed
|
79
|
75.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Cost-Effective Alternative?
One of the promises of EM programs is reduced correctional costs.
Unfortunately, because many EM programs appear to target lower risk
offenders and run the risk of widening the correctional net, estimating
the true cost savings is difficult. The cost-benefit analyses that have
been reported in the literature have been equivocal. Ball et al. (1988)
reported the results from two analyses using different assumptions. In
one analysis it cost more to keep offenders in EM than in jail and
in the second analysis it cost less. The Ontario pilot project
cost $216,000 more than incarceration (Ontario, 1991). Mainprize (1992)
observed that the original plans for the British Columbia program called
for five officers to supervise 150 offenders. However, the Vancouver
pilot project had five officers supervising 25 offenders. It was
estimated that a province wide implementation to supervise 175 offenders
would require 44 additional officers.
A serious problem with many cost-effectiveness analyses is the
calculation of the per diem incarceration costs. The typical estimate is
based upon the costs of staffing, meals, clothing and other services.
Thus, the "cost" for incarcerating an offender often exceeds $100 per
day. However, once an institution is staffed and operating, the cost for
incarcerating an additional individual drops dramatically. Staff salaries
account for the majority of the expenses in operating an institution.
Once staffing costs are fixed, any additional costs are limited to food,
clothing and services. These added costs may amount to only a fraction of
the average annual costs. Only if new facilities are not constructed or
existing ones closed, can significant cost savings be realised.
Related to the potential cost-savings is the impact of EM on incarcerated
populations. To produce significant cost-savings, EM programs must impact
on the size of the custodial population (Lilly, 1992). In many studies,
the proportion of offenders in EM programs to the prison population has
been typically too small to have an impact. The stringent eligibility
criteria for many programs limit the potential for EM to have an
influence on the imprisoned population. Sometimes, even the voluntary
nature of the programs has led to bizarre situations. For example, in an
evaluation of a program in Kentucky, some offenders refused EM
knowing that they would be released early because of overcrowding in the
jail (Ball et al., 1988).
The possibility that EM may not offer an inexpensive alternative is
evidenced by the widespread use of user fees in the United States.
Approximately two-thirds of EM programs in America require offenders to
contribute financially to the programs. Slightly more than half of the
programs charged between $100 and $300 in monthly fees rising as high as
$450. In Kentucky, monthly fees were calculated based upon a maximum of
"25% of the offender's net weekly household income" (Ball et al., 1988,
p. 82). Although most jurisdictions have policies that may waive the
fees, it is unclear as to how often fees are waived.
Most importantly, arguments for the cost-effectiveness of EM programs are
usually based upon comparisons to incarcerated offenders. Without
controls for offender risk, such comparisons misinform policy-makers and
the public. If significant proportions of EM participants are low risk
offenders (recall Table 1), it is possible for these offenders to conduct
themselves successfully in the community without the additional controls
imposed by EM. Therefore, a more appropriate comparison may be
probationers, or at the very least, inmates who are matched on offender
risk level to the EM participants.
The Role of Treatment
For most intermediate sanctions, offender treatment services have been
rarely considered (Cullen et al., 1996). In the case of EM, the problem
of providing treatment is compounded by a number of factors. First,
because EM is a method for ensuring house arrest, the movement of
offenders is restricted. This can create obstacles in taking advantage of
available treatment programs. For example, Nee (1990) found that over 50%
of the offenders in their EM program were confined to their houses for
over 16 hours per day.
Also mitigating against the delivery of treatment services are the
conflicting thoughts about how EM programs control criminal behaviour.
Two views are typically presented. The most frequent opinion is that EM
is a deterrent. Like any other sanction, punishment controls the
behaviour and therefore, offender treatment is not necessary. The second
view, advocated by Ball and Lilly (1986) is that EM is actually
rehabilitative. By being forced to stay at home and supposedly out of
trouble, the offender is able to "internalize incentives for good
behavior". Other than isolating offenders from criminal associates, it is
difficult to see how being at home in some sort of quiet reflection will
help resolve such typical offender problems as substance abuse and
unemployment.
In summary, treatment programming is rarely a feature of EM. The reasons
for this state of affairs are many. The fact remains that there is no
compelling evidence from the EM literature or the general literature that
correctional sanctions without a direct service component will lead to
lowered recidivism (Cullen et al., 1996; Gendreau, Cullen & Bonta,
1994). Rather, some reviews of the literature suggest that sanctions by
themselves are associated with increased recidivism (Andrews & Bonta,
1998).
Chapter II. The Three Provincial EM Programs
Three provinces participated in the evaluation of their EM programs:
British Columbia (B.C.), Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland. Although all
three programs used very similar equipment (ankle bracelets with
centralised computer monitoring), they differed in client targeting and
program operation. The variation in EM programs made it possible to
evaluate whether the type of client, how they were supervised, and the
correctional context were important for the effectiveness of EM
supervision. In order to document these variations, an extensive range of
information was collected and interim reports for each province were
completed. The interim reports did not combine information across
provinces nor did they include recidivism information. This section
summarises the general methodology and findings from the interim reports.
Data Collection Methodology
Standardised procedures and data collection instruments were applied
across all three sites. The offenders and staff completed a number of
questionnaires (copies of the questionnaires are available upon request).
For the offenders, there were three sets of questionnaires. The first
questionnaire, called the Self-Report Questionnaire (SRQ), asked
offenders about their criminal history and personal-social situation.
Where possible, the information was verified with official records.
Information from the 78 item SRQ was used to calculate risk-need scores
for the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta,
1995) and the Manitoba Risk-Needs classification instrument (Bonta,
Parkinson, Pang, Barkwell, & Wallace-Capretta, 1994). Both of these
risk-needs instruments have demonstrated empirical validity in the
risk-needs classification of offenders. Motiuk, Motiuk and Bonta (1992)
have also shown that reliable offender risk-needs information can be
derived from the paper and pencil SRQ. The calculation of offender LSI-R
and Manitoba Risk-Needs scores permitted an empirically based assessment
of the risk and needs level of offenders under supervision. With this
information, we were in a position to evaluate whether EM had an effect
on recidivism after controlling for offender risk-needs scores.
The second questionnaire asked offenders to describe their views of the
EM program (e.g., what were the benefits of the program, whether it
caused them hardships, etc.). The third set of questions asked about the
offenders' relationship and their views regarding the supervising
officers. The supervising staff completed a parallel set of
questionnaires on how they saw the program and their views of the
offenders' performance on the program. Participation was voluntary and
the information was for research purposes only. Compliance rates were
relatively high. For example, for the SRQ compliance rates ranged from
73.2% in B.C. to nearly 100% in Newfoundland. Offenders returned their
questionnaires in sealed envelopes that were collected by research staff.
The offenders completed the SRQ at the beginning of EM placement. The
remaining two questionnaires concerning the program were completed by the
offenders and the officers at the end of the placement. Whenever
possible, offenders who violated EM conditions and were returned to
prison completed the "exit" questionnaires in prison.
Offenders also agreed to have their correctional and program files
reviewed by research staff. Some of the file review information was used
to corroborate the SRQ and provide additional information about the
offenders and their program experience. Except for Saskatchewan, where a
small sample of female offenders participated (n = 26), all the EM
offenders were males. The present report is based on only the 262 male
offenders. For each provincial site, a prison comparison sample was
constructed (total sample size of 240). Efforts were made to select the
inmates using the EM eligibility criteria from the particular province.
The inmates completed the SRQ only and they gave permission to have their
files reviewed. In Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, information on 30
probationers (without EM supervision) was collected. All sets of
questionnaires, with slight modifications, were given to the
probationers.
Finally, the EM program in Newfoundland required the offenders to attend
an intensive and highly structured treatment program. This program
received an independent assessment as to how closely the treatment
program followed the principles of effective offender rehabilitation. The
participants in the treatment program also completed a questionnaire
concerning their views of treatment and their counsellors.
Data collection began in late 1995 and, in the case of Newfoundland,
continued to September 1997. Post-program recidivism information was
gathered from the R.C.M.P.'s Criminal History records as well as
provincial records (court and correctional). Recidivism was defined as a
reconviction within one year of program completion. During the course of
conducting the post-program follow-up, we found that 25 offenders from
B.C. had changed their original group status from the prison comparison
sample to the EM program. Part way through the project, the province
implemented a recruitment drive for the EM program and 25 inmates from
the original prison comparison group were subsequently placed into EM. As
a result, we re-assigned these 25 offenders into the EM group for this
report. Thus, only SRQ and some file information were available for these
offenders explaining some of our missing data. The interim report on the
program in B.C. did not account for this shift in group membership.
Therefore, the results comparing EM offenders with the prison comparison
group reported in the interim report no longer apply.
The final group membership for all three provinces is shown in Table 3.
Newfoundland had the smallest EM program, and with the mandatory
treatment requirement, yielded the fewest number of subjects. The
probation samples from Newfoundland and Saskatchewan were small and the
results from these comparisons should be interpreted with caution.
Table 3. Group Membership by Province
Province
|
Group
|
EM
|
Probation
|
Prison
|
Newfoundland
|
56
|
17
|
100
|
British Columbia
|
125
|
-
|
75
|
Saskatchewan
|
81
|
13
|
65
|
Total
|
262
|
30
|
240
|
Newfoundland: Highlights from the Interim Report
(April, 1998)
The EM program in Newfoundland was established in November 1994. When the
study began, EM was limited to the city of St. John's. EM in Newfoundland
is a corrections based program. Nonviolent offenders, of moderate risk to
re-offend, were drawn from the local prison and placed on temporary
absences with an electronic monitoring condition. (Low risk offenders
were given temporary absences without EM). In addition to EM
surveillance, the program participants were required to participate in
the Learning Resources Program (LRP) provided by the John Howard Society
of Newfoundland. The LRP is an intensive treatment program offering nine
hours per week of group, cognitive-behavioural programming. The major
treatment targets are substance abuse and anger management. Individual
counselling related to employment and other personal needs are provided
in addition to the group programs.
The Newfoundland program was the smallest of the three provinces and it
had difficulty filling the groups offered by the LRP. As a result, the
treatment program was also opened to offenders under regular probation
orders. A small sample of 17 male probationers volunteered to participate
in the research.
In March 1996, Dr. Paul Gendreau from the University of New Brunswick
conducted an independent assessment of the LRP using the Correctional
Programs Assessment Inventory (CPAI). The CPAI (Gendreau & Andrews,
1996) is a structured approach to evaluating how well a program
corresponds with what is known about effective offender rehabilitation.
In the absence of direct information about a program's impact on
recidivism, the CPAI provides an estimate as to how successful the
program may be in reducing recidivism. Programs are assessed along a
number of categories (e.g., client assessment, staff characteristics,
etc.) identified by research to be associated with reduced recidivism.
The results of the assessment of the LRP placed the program in the top
10% of 230 programs evaluated using the CPAI. Thus, there was reason to
believe that the programming aspects of the LRP were reasonable and
potentially effective.
Fifty-six male offenders were placed in the EM program and all but two
attended the LRP (these two offenders were fully employed and therefore,
they were not available to attend treatment). Slightly more than half
(56.3%) of the offenders fell in the medium and high classification
ranges of the LSI-R. Consequently, the EM program did not appear to have
a significant net-widening effect and the program was relatively
successful in targeting those offenders that it was designed to manage.
Despite the fact that most participants in the EM program were moderate
to high risk, successful program completion rates were high. EM offenders
averaged 72 days in the program and 87.5% completed the program without
committing a new offence or a serious breach of conditions. This
completion rate was significantly higher than for the probationers who
attended the LRP (52.9%; X2 = 7.09, p < .01). Although the
probation sample size was quite small (n = 17), the results suggested
that the additional requirements of EM and perhaps the threat of a return
to prison for non-cooperation ensured that the EM offenders completed the
program.
Upon leaving the program, offenders, probation and treatment staff
completed questionnaires on their views of EM and the LRP. The offenders
did not find EM very disruptive to their lives and 86.2% of them thought
that the EM program would keep them away from crime (only 10-15% of the
staff felt that EM would have a long-term effect on recidivism).
Similarly, when asked about the lasting effects of treatment, 14% of the
probation officers thought that treatment would be effective in avoiding
recidivism. Surprisingly, only 20% of the LRP staff thought that
treatment would reduce recidivism. These pessimistic estimates by staff
may reflect the relative newness of the programs (both EM and LRP) and
uncertainty about their impact.
Finally, offenders gave very favourable ratings to probation and
treatment staff. Slightly more than 70% of the offenders rated their
probation officer as "interested in helping me". Eighty per cent of the
offenders endorsed this statement when asked about their treatment staff.
Two-thirds of the offenders felt that the treatment staff "gave me real
help" (only 37.5% of the offenders felt this way about their probation
officers). In summary, the EM program, together with the LRP, were viewed
as a beneficial experience by the offenders.
Saskatchewan: Highlights from the Interim Report
(January, 1998)
The EM program in Saskatchewan is court based. That is, the Court places
offenders on intensive probation with a condition of electronic
monitoring. Although probation sentences can last up to three years, the
EM condition usually does not last longer than six months. EM began as a
pilot project in 1990 and by 1996, EM was available to the courts across
the province. At the time of the study, the Saskatchewan EM program was
the second largest in the country. There were approximately 90 offenders
in the program on any given day.
Data were collected on 81 male and 26 female offenders sentenced to the
program in three sites (Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert). Also
available to the courts was an Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS)
program, which was very similar to the EM program. Placement into the two
programs was at the discretion of the Court, supervision was conducted by
probation officers, and in both programs the supervision was more
intensive than traditional probation. The major difference was that one
program included EM. As a result, information was also collected on a
small sample of 16 IPS offenders (13 males and 3 females).
The IPS offenders scored higher on the risk-needs scales than offenders
in the EM program. This finding was surprising because we expected the EM
offenders, who were under more restrictions, to represent a higher risk
group of offenders. In addition, nearly 30% of the EM offenders were
classified low risk by the LSI-R and the Manitoba Risk-Needs scale.
Together, these two findings led to the conclusion that in Saskatchewan,
EM widened the correctional net. To lend further support to this
conclusion, we found program success rates did not improve with the
electronic monitoring option. The findings, although not statistically
significant, actually went in the opposite direction. Probationers
without electronic monitoring showed higher success rates than
probationers in the EM program (93.8% vs 84.0%).
There was some evidence, however, that EM successfully targeted subgroups
of moderate risk offenders. Saskatchewan has Canada's highest
incarceration rate of Aboriginal offenders. One of the goals of the EM
program in the province is to target Aboriginal and female offenders and
provide them with an alternative to incarceration. In this regard, a
significant proportion of EM participants was of Aboriginal origin and
they tended to be higher risk than the non-Aboriginal offenders in the
program. Thus, the EM program appeared to function as an alternative to
incarceration for Aboriginal offenders. Similar findings were found with
the female offenders in the EM program. The women scored higher on the
risk-needs scales than the men suggesting that were it not for the EM
program, these women would likely have been incarcerated.
On average, the probationers under electronic surveillance spent 20 weeks
in the program and were seen weekly by their supervising officer. When
the EM participants were asked about the program and their supervising
probation officer, the responses were generally positive. Over ninety per
cent (92.6%) of the offenders described their probation officers as
providing "real help" and 88.6% said that they felt their probation
officer understood their problems. Finally, the offenders were more
optimistic that the program would help them to avoid further crime than
the probation officers (85.4% vs 40.6%).
British Columbia: Highlights from the Interim
Report (April, 1997)
British Columbia was the first province to establish an electronic
monitoring program (1987) and it has become the largest program in
Canada. The average daily count on the program often exceeded 300
offenders. The program is corrections based. However, unlike the EM
program in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, there is no particular effort
to target moderate risk offenders or to require treatment attendance. The
criteria for participation are: a) minimum risk to the community, b)
nonviolent, and c) no more than four months remaining in his/her
sentence.
One hundred male offenders participated in the study (this number
increases to 125 as we explained earlier in this report). The offenders
all came from the Fraser region and were fairly representative of EM
offenders across the province. As the eligibility criteria for the EM
program were quite restrictive, the possibility of a net-widening effect
was increased. Thus, it was not surprising to find some evidence to
support a conclusion of a net-widening effect. Approximately 25% of the
EM participants were classified minimum risk offenders and the average
length of time in the program was the shortest of all three provinces:
37.3 days (n = 125). Although the successful program completion rate was
high (89.3%), the relatively low risk sample and short stay on the
program could explain this finding.
Unlike the EM programs in Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, the supervising
staff in British Columbia was re-assigned to community supervision duties
from their positions within prisons. That is, most EM supervisors were
correctional officers rather than probation officers. The supervising
staff was quite pessimistic about the crime control benefits of the EM
program. Only 8% of staff felt that the program would prevent future
crime. Offenders, on the other hand, were more optimistic of the crime
prevention benefits of EM with 59.8% saying that they were unlikely to
commit further crime. Added to this was the finding that 53.6% of the
offenders reported that their supervising officers did not provide any
"real help".
Chapter III. Client Selection and Program
Processes
The interim reports focused on the preliminary findings specific to the
province where the program operated. Only cursory, across province
comparisons were made. A few comparisons were made to the probationers
but none to the inmate samples. These comparisons are important to
evaluate EM relative to other forms of correctional control. Finally, one
year post-program recidivism information became available. The present
report combines the data across sites and includes an analysis of the
impact of EM on recidivism. Therefore, we are in a better position to
evaluate the relative merits of the different EM programs.
All three programs shared electronic surveillance as a method for
supervising offenders in the community, but they also had some unique
features. Although there may have been some unmeasured influences
specific to a site, the major differences among sites allowed us to
address some of the following questions:
-
Does net-widening occur?
-
Does it matter whether the offenders are referred from corrections or
the courts?
-
What is the effect of using probation officers as opposed to
correctional officers for supervising EM offenders?
-
Does treatment add value to the EM program?
-
Does EM have an effect on recidivism after the monitoring stops?
Answers to these questions are presented in this report.
The EM Offenders
Information was collected on 262 offenders who participated in the EM
programs from the three provinces. There was considerable variability in
the personal-demographic characteristics of the EM offenders across the
three provinces (Table 4). The offenders from Newfoundland showed the
lowest levels of social achievement and relatively high levels of
substance abuse. Their unemployment rate was 71.4% and the average grade
completed in school was 9.3. Half of the offenders in the Newfoundland
program reported problems with alcohol abuse and 36.4% had a current drug
abuse problem. The EM participants from Saskatchewan had the lowest rates
of drug abuse (17.3%) and most were married or living common-law (59.3%).
Moreover, 49.1% of the offenders for whom we had ethnicity information
were of Aboriginal origins (including Métis).
Table 4. Characteristics of EM Offenders by Province
Characteristic
|
n
|
BC
|
SK
|
NF
|
F/X 2
|
p
|
Age (years)
|
261
|
30.9
|
31.4
|
28.8
|
1.51
|
ns
|
Grade completed
|
260
|
10.9
|
10.8
|
9.3
|
14.22
|
.001
|
Unemployed (%)
|
261
|
44.0
|
36.3
|
71.4
|
17.53
|
.001
|
Alcohol abuse (%)
|
260
|
32.3
|
50.6
|
50.9
|
9.10
|
.01
|
Drug abuse (%)
|
260
|
37.1
|
17.3
|
36.4
|
10.05
|
.01
|
Aboriginal (%)
|
234
|
4.8
|
49.1
|
0.0
|
73.41
|
.001
|
Living Arrangement (%):
|
229
|
|
|
|
41.15
|
.001
|
Spouse/Common-Law
|
|
25.3
|
52.0
|
45.5
|
|
|
Alone/Single parent
|
|
9.1
|
14.7
|
10.9
|
|
|
Other/Group
|
|
43.4
|
13.3
|
5.5
|
|
|
With Parents
|
|
22.2
|
20.0
|
38.2
|
|
|
Marital Status (%):
|
262
|
|
|
|
16.41
|
.01
|
Single
|
|
53.6
|
32.1
|
51.8
|
|
|
Separated/Divorced
|
|
14.4
|
8.6
|
7.1
|
|
|
Married/Common-law
|
|
32.0
|
59.3
|
41.1
|
|
|
Notes: Numbers vary due to missing information; ns = nonsignificant.
Table 5 summarises criminal history and risk-needs characteristics of the
EM offenders. Surprisingly, the offenders from Saskatchewan had the
highest number of prior convictions (an average of 10.3). Considering
that they were given probation, the condition of EM may have been viewed
as an added control needed to deal with these offenders in the community
rather than in prison. It is also possible that the offenders who were in
the EM program in Saskatchewan may have had a less serious criminal
history. For example, the Saskatchewan EM participants had the fewest
number of prior incarcerations (48.1%). With respect to the type of
offence committed, the B.C. offenders showed the highest rates of
liquor/traffic offences (38.4%) whereas the offenders in Newfoundland
demonstrated the lowest rates of crimes against person (5.4%).
Interestingly, three out of ten (30.7%) offenders in the B.C. program had
been in the electronic monitoring program before.
The most important finding shown in Table 5 is that the offenders in the
Newfoundland EM program were higher risk, as measured by the LSI-R, than
the offenders from the other two provinces. The results from the Revised
Manitoba Risk-Needs instrument, although in the expected direction, did
not differentiate the three groups at a statistically significant level.
The reason for this is probably because the Manitoba classification
instrument has a smaller range of scores (0 - 22) than the LSI-R (0 - 54)
and therefore, it is less capable of making finer distinctions among
groups.
Table 5. Criminal History and Risk Factors of EM Participants by Province
Variable
|
n
|
BC
|
SK
|
NF
|
F/X 2
|
p
|
# prior convictions
|
234
|
5.5
|
10.3
|
4.4
|
6.56
|
.01
|
Most Serious Offence (%):
|
262
|
|
|
|
23.58
|
.01
|
Person
|
|
15.2
|
23.5
|
5.4
|
|
|
Property
|
|
30.4
|
40.7
|
33.9
|
|
|
Drug
|
|
9.6
|
14.8
|
17.9
|
|
|
Liquor/Traffic
|
|
38.4
|
17.3
|
28.6
|
|
|
Other
|
|
6.4
|
3.7
|
14.3
|
|
|
Criminal history (%):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Incarcerated
|
262
|
70.4
|
48.1
|
71.4
|
12.35
|
.01
|
% Parole/probation violation
|
262
|
41.6
|
39.5
|
41.1
|
.09
|
ns
|
% Violent history
|
261
|
30.4
|
39.5
|
16.4
|
8.31
|
.05
|
% Prior EM
|
251
|
30.7
|
3.7
|
1.8
|
36.69
|
.001
|
LSI-R
|
260
|
20.2
|
20.3
|
24.8
|
7.18
|
.001
|
Manitoba-Revised
|
262
|
9.8
|
9.4
|
10.7
|
2.53
|
ns
|
Notes: Numbers vary due to missing information; ns = nonsignificant
When we combine information from Tables 4 and 5, we are led to conclude
that the offenders in the Newfoundland EM program represent a higher risk
and higher need group. They scored higher than their counterparts from
the other provinces on the LSI-R, were less educated, more likely to be
unemployed and evidenced substance abuse problems at least equal to
offenders from the other two provinces. At the other end of the spectrum,
EM participants in B.C. appeared to be the lowest risk group of EM
offenders. Their similarities to the Saskatchewan group (similar
risk-needs scores, age, grade, and employment status) raise the
possibility that a non-custodial alternative would have been sufficient
for many of these offenders. This possibility is explored further later
in this report.
Program Processes
The three EM programs investigated in this study had some very
fundamental differences in their operation. Two programs (B.C. and
Newfoundland) were corrections based and one was court based
(Saskatchewan). In Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, the EM offenders were
supervised by probation officers and in B.C. they were supervised by
correctional officers assigned to work in the community. The Newfoundland
program specifically targeted moderate risk offenders and required the
offenders to attend a structured, intensive treatment program. The
average length of time that the offender was in the program also varied
across provinces. The offenders in Saskatchewan had the longest time in
EM (139.3 days), followed by Newfoundland (71.6 days) and B.C. (37.3
days; F (2, 254) = 151.91, p < .001). All of these factors, along with
others, can influence the experiences of offenders and how they and staff
viewed the program. In turn, these program processes and "consumer"
perceptions can potentially impact on program outcome.
Offenders' Views of EM. Upon completion of electronic
monitoring, or if failed and imprisoned, the offenders were asked to
complete a series of questions asking them about the program. The results
from the exit questionnaires are shown in Table 6. In general, the
offenders who participated in the EM programs reported that they were
given sufficient information about EM prior to their placement. When
questions were asked about the inconveniences caused by the program,
offenders from B.C. reported the least amount of dissatisfaction. Only
16% found EM to be more difficult than expected, considerably less than
in the other provinces (41.5% in Saskatchewan and 37.9% in Newfoundland).
The B.C. participants also reported less embarrassment with wearing the
equipment and fewer disruptions in daily routines.
Table 6. Offender Exit Questionnaire Results (% Agreeing)
Question
|
n
|
BC
|
SK
|
NF
|
X 2
|
Given enough information about EM
|
193
|
88.0
|
92.3
|
85.7
|
1.18
|
EM was more difficult than expected
|
194
|
16.0
|
41.5
|
37.9
|
14.52***
|
Equipment was uncomfortable
|
194
|
23.0
|
30.8
|
20.7
|
1.64
|
Wearing the equipment was embarrassing
|
194
|
24.0
|
58.5
|
55.2
|
22.6***
|
EM affected my daily routine
|
193
|
62.6
|
76.9
|
86.2
|
7.73*
|
Frequency of calls was too frequent
|
192
|
4.1
|
6.2
|
20.7
|
7.22*
|
Officer visits caused problems
|
190
|
6.2
|
9.4
|
20.7
|
4.67
|
Most frequently cited problem:
|
183
|
|
|
|
|
No freedom
|
|
36.2
|
34.4
|
35.7
|
|
Following rules/curfew
|
|
16.0
|
18.0
|
7.1
|
|
Interfered with family life
|
|
1.1
|
4.9
|
3.6
|
|
Interfered with work
|
|
3.2
|
11.5
|
0.0
|
|
No problems mentioned
|
|
17.0
|
11.5
|
17.9
|
|
Notes: Numbers may vary due to missing information; *** p < .001; * p
< .05
The overall impression given by the B.C. participants was that the
program was relatively easy to follow. We suspect that this finding may
have been influenced by the fact that the EM offenders in B.C. had the
shortest period of time in the program thereby making the program more
tolerable. Although the number of days in the program was related to the
offenders' reports of difficulties, statistical analysis controlling for
the length of time in the program still found the B.C. offenders
reporting the fewest problems with EM.
EM programs are often thought to provide benefits beyond cost savings for
institutions. The vast majority of the offenders reported positive
attitudes toward the EM program. When given the statement "electronic
monitoring was a fair program for me", 90.1% agreed (responses ranged
from 84.6% in Saskatchewan to 94.9% in B.C.). In addition, 90.6% reported
that EM was a "good correctional program" and 85.7% said that they would
recommend the program to other offenders.
Almost all of the EM participants (95.3%) saw personal benefits resulting
from their participation. The offenders were asked to rate various
advantages of the program. The results are shown in Table 7. Maintaining
contact with the family was the most frequently endorsed benefit from the
program regardless of where the program was given. From the offenders'
perspective this was seen as more important than employment related
activities. Between province differences were found with respect to
maintaining employment and attending treatment. Offenders from the
Newfoundland program were less concerned about EM allowing them to
maintain employment compared to the offenders from the other provinces.
This however, may be due partly to the high unemployment rates for the
Newfoundland participants and the fact that the EM program required
attendance at the LRP. As shown in Table 7, the offenders in the
Newfoundland program rated attending treatment as a far more important
benefit of the program than did the offenders in B.C. and Saskatchewan.
Table 7. Perceived Benefits from the EM Program: Offenders' Views (%
Agree)
Benefit
|
n
|
BC
|
SK
|
NF
|
p
|
Contact with family
|
180
|
86.3
|
79.3
|
88.9
|
ns
|
Care for children
|
167
|
37.6
|
44.6
|
50.0
|
ns
|
Seek employment
|
173
|
44.0
|
58.9
|
57.7
|
ns
|
Maintain employment
|
177
|
61.7
|
72.9
|
41.7
|
.05
|
Attend treatment
|
173
|
45.1
|
66.1
|
88.5
|
.001
|
Notes: Numbers vary due to missing information; ns = nonsignificant
Offenders' Views of their Supervisors. Upon completion of
the EM program, the offenders were asked a number of questions about
their supervising officer. For community correctional staff, supervising
offenders involves both monitoring offenders to ensure compliance with
the conditions of temporary absence or probation and assisting the
offender in adopting a more prosocial lifestyle. This latter function
requires some element of respect and willingness from the offender to
follow the guidance of the supervising agent. Supervisors who are seen as
more empathic and understanding may be expected to have a more positive
influence on their clients.
Table 8 shows the results from the questions asked to the offenders about
their supervisors. In general, the results show that the supervisors in
B.C. were seen as the least helpful and least open to discussing personal
issues. We interpret this finding within the context of the roles of the
supervising officers. In B.C., most of the supervisors were selected from
the ranks of institutional staff who were less likely to have a played a
helping role and more likely to have experiences involving confrontation
and enforcement when interacting with offenders. Supervision in the other
two provinces was by probation officers who, perhaps as a result of
experience and training, relied more on interpersonal skills to influence
offenders than did the officers in B.C.
Table 8. The Offenders' Views of their Supervising Officers
(% Agree)
Question
|
BC
|
SK
|
NF
|
NF*
|
p
|
Can talk about personal problems
|
42.9
|
82.8
|
79.3
|
85.7
|
.001
|
Interested in helping me
|
73.5
|
95.3
|
89.7
|
100.0
|
.001
|
Gave me real help
|
46.4
|
90.6
|
75.0
|
96.4
|
.001
|
Directed my life
|
28.6
|
56.3
|
51.7
|
48.3
|
.001
|
Met me because he had to
|
46.9
|
78.1
|
62.1
|
75.0
|
.001
|
Would have changed officer
|
10.1
|
10.9
|
31.0
|
10.3
|
.01
|
Understood my problems
|
59.2
|
90.5
|
72.4
|
93.1
|
.001
|
Easy to talk to
|
80.8
|
92.1
|
79.3
|
93.1
|
ns
|
* Views of counsellors in Newfoundland by EM offenders. Sample size
varies from 189 to 192. Statistical significance testing conducted only
for correctional staff evaluations.
Compared to the offenders in B.C., those in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland
were more likely to report that their supervisors were easy to approach
regarding personal problems, gave them direction, and "gave me real
help". Although officers from all three provinces were regarded as "easy
to talk to", it is clear that speaking about personal problems was most
relevant in the provinces where probation officers conducted the
supervision. An unusual finding was that 31% of the EM offenders in
Newfoundland would have changed officers if they could. Unfortunately, we
did not ask the offenders why they wanted to change officers.
The EM offenders in Newfoundland also had significant contact with
treatment personnel. The offenders were asked similar questions about
their counsellors and they gave highly favourable evaluations (see Table
8). More detailed analysis of the EM offenders in the Newfoundland
treatment program is presented shortly.
Staff Views of EM. Just as the offenders' views of a
program are important, so are the views of the staff. Table 9 shows some
of the results from the staff questionnaires. The staff from B.C.,
compared to those from the other provinces, saw EM as less fair. Although
the B.C. staff was just as likely to say that the program benefited the
particular offender that they were supervising, when asked about the
value of EM for most offenders, they gave the least favourable
evaluation.
Table 9. Staff Views of the EM Program (% Agree)
Question
|
n
|
BC
|
SK
|
NF
|
p
|
For the Offender:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EM is a fair program: Yes
|
234
|
73.7
|
82.3
|
94.6
|
.01
|
No opinion
|
|
15.2
|
6.3
|
1.8
|
|
No
|
|
11.1
|
11.4
|
3.6
|
|
EM benefited the offender: Yes
|
232
|
83.0
|
82.7
|
82.4
|
ns
|
No
|
|
17.0
|
17.3
|
17.6
|
|
In general: *
|
(n)
|
(10)
|
(3)
|
(14)
|
|
EM is useful for offenders
|
|
70.0
|
100.0
|
78.6
|
|
Could be implemented with other offenders
|
|
50.0
|
66.7
|
85.7
|
|
* Staff sample size for general questions were too low for statistical
testing (n = 27).
ns = nonsignificant
Perceptions of EM as Crime Control. Both the EM
participants and the supervising staff was asked whether they thought the
program had any crime control function. Views were elicited on the
perceived impact for the participating individual offender and for
offenders in general. The results are displayed in Table 10. The B.C.
offenders were the least likely to perceive EM as having a crime control
function for themselves either while in the program or after completion.
When asked whether the program would control crime for most offenders
while in the program, there were no differences among the participants
from the three provinces. However, the B.C. participants were the most
sceptical about the impact of EM for most offenders after completion of
the program. Only 31.9% of the B.C. offenders agreed with the statement
that EM would prevent most offenders from committing crimes after program
completion. In Saskatchewan, 58.3% of offenders and 65.4% of the
offenders from Newfoundland thought that EM would prevent future crime
for most offenders
(X 2 = 19.82, df = 2, p < .001).
Not only did the B.C. offenders express the most pessimistic assessment
of the crime control potential of the EM program, so too did the
supervising staff (see right side of Table 10). The staff from B.C. felt
that only 27.3% of their clients were prevented from criminal behaviour
while in the program. Staff from the other two provinces felt that the EM
program prevented crime for approximately half of their clients. Further,
when asked about the impact of the program after completion, the staff
from Saskatchewan gave the most optimistic rating of 38.3% of their
clients unlikely to commit further crimes. In B.C. and Newfoundland,
staff had no opinion in half of their cases. Twenty-seven supervising
staff answered questions about the benefits and deterrent value of EM for
most offenders (not just the specific offender that they were
supervising). At this general level, 77.8% of the staff from the three
provinces felt that EM was useful for offenders but only 37.0% felt that
EM is an effective deterrent of future crime for most offenders.
Table 10. Views of EM as a Potential Crime Prevention Program (%)
Question
|
Offender Views
|
|
Staff Views
|
|
A
|
N/O
|
D
|
p
|
|
A
|
N/O
|
D
|
p
|
No crime on EM:
|
|
(n = 189)
|
*
|
|
|
(n = 231)
|
***
|
British Columbia
|
66.3
|
20.0
|
13.7
|
|
|
27.3
|
41.4
|
31.3
|
|
Saskatchewan
|
80.0
|
12.3
|
7.7
|
|
|
48.1
|
16.0
|
35.8
|
|
Newfoundland
|
93.1
|
3.4
|
3.4
|
|
|
56.9
|
25.5
|
17.6
|
|
No crime after EM:
|
|
(n =191)
|
***
|
|
|
(n = 237)
|
***
|
British Columbia
|
59.8
|
27.8
|
12.4
|
|
|
8.0
|
52.0
|
40.0
|
|
Saskatchewan
|
87.7
|
7.7
|
4.6
|
|
|
38.3
|
19.8
|
42.0
|
|
Newfoundland
|
86.2
|
13.8
|
0.0
|
|
|
14.3
|
55.4
|
30.4
|
|
For most no crime on EM:
|
|
(n = 180)
|
ns
|
|
|
|
|
|
British Columbia
|
64.9
|
10.6
|
24.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saskatchewan
|
73.3
|
15.0
|
11.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newfoundland
|
84.6
|
3.8
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For most no crime after E M:
|
|
(n = 180)
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
British Columbia
|
31.9
|
30.9
|
37.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saskatchewan
|
58.3
|
30.0
|
11.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newfoundland
|
65.4
|
19.2
|
15.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: * p < .05, *** p < .001, ns = nonsignificant
A = Agree; N/O = No opinion, D = Disagree
Views of the LRP (Treatment). The LRP in Newfoundland is a
structured and intensive treatment program provided to the EM offenders.
There are a number of different components to the program consisting of a
foundation group (a pretreatment, mandatory course), a substance abuse
module, anger management training, and a cognitive skills course. In
addition, individual counselling was given to almost all of the offenders
(92.6%). Approximately one-half of the offenders (55.6%) participated in
the anger management group and 75.9% attended the substance abuse
program.
The EM offenders attending the LRP were generally approving of the
program and their therapists. Over eighty per cent (82.8%) said that the
program was suited to their needs and no one said that it was "a waste of
time". The offenders (96.4%) felt that the counsellors gave them "real
help" and only five offenders (17.2%) said that they would change their
counsellor if they had the opportunity. Finally, 86.2% agreed with the
statement that the LRP would prevent them from committing crimes in the
future.
The treatment staff from the LRP generally agreed that the program was a
benefit to the offender. 88% of the offenders were thought to have
benefited from the program. More specifically, 74.5% of the clients were
judged to have profited from the alcohol counselling and 68.1% from
individual counselling. However, when the counsellors were asked if the
program helped to reduce recidivism, there was mixed opinion. For nearly
one-third of the clients (30.8%), staff had no opinion as to whether the
LRP prevented crime while in the program. This rate jumps to 64.7% of the
cases when asked if the program prevents crime in the future for
individual clients. This uncertainty mirrored the answers to the
questions about EM's general impact on recidivism. No opinion was given
for 30.2% of cases regarding the control of crime while in the program
and 71.7% for future recidivism. Yet, staff felt that the LRP coupled
with EM would benefit 96.2% of the cases.
Chapter IV. Program Effectiveness
In correctional program evaluations, two measures of success have
prominence: 1) controlling criminal behaviour while in the program, and
2) controlling criminal behaviour after completing the program. Programs
that perform poorly in controlling in-program and post-program recidivism
fail to meet the public's expectation of ensuring community safety. In
this report we examined the role of EM programs in meeting the goals of
public safety.
What Factors Relate to Program Success?
Successful completion of EM was defined as completing the program without
a new criminal offence or a breach of conditions serious enough to
warrant program termination. In light of the variability in program
operation and delivery (e.g., court vs corrections based, type of
supervisory staff), it was a bit surprising to find no significant
differences in program completion rates among the three provinces. In
Newfoundland, 87.5% of the offenders completed the EM program without
incident, in B.C. the completion rate was 89.3%, and in Saskatchewan,
86.3% of the offenders successfully completed the program.
We undertook a more detailed search for variables, beyond provincial
program, that could be associated with program success/failure. Over 40
variables were tested with respect to an association with EM program
outcome. These variables were taken from files, the SRQ and the exit
questionnaires completed by offenders and staff. The significant
predictors of EM failure are displayed in Table 11.
Table 11. Predictors of Failure on EM
Variable
|
n
|
r
|
p
|
# prior convictions
|
231
|
.19
|
.01
|
Arrested as a juvenile
|
255
|
.14
|
.05
|
Unemployed
|
257
|
.22
|
.001
|
Drug problem
|
256
|
.15
|
.05
|
Lives in a group residence
|
159
|
.28
|
.001
|
Offender views EM as a fair program
|
190
|
-.19
|
.01
|
LSI-R Risk- Needs Score
|
256
|
.22
|
.001
|
Manitoba Risk-Needs Score
|
258
|
.24
|
.001
|
Relatively few variables predicted failure in the EM program. Two of the
predictors were criminal history variables and another two were composite
measures of offender risk-needs (the LSI-R and the Manitoba Risk-Needs
scales). Being unemployed and having a current drug abuse problem (but
not alcohol abuse) were also associated with program failure. Although
living in a group residence showed the highest relationship with failure
on EM, this relationship was accounted for by offender risk level. Higher
risk offenders were more likely to live in a group residence and when
this fact was taken into account, living location per se was unrelated to
program outcome.
In the previous section on program processes we reported on the offender
and staff views of EM. We found a number of differences in the offenders'
responses according to province. Participants from provinces where
supervision was provided by probation staff, in general, had more
favourable views of the staff and the program. An analysis of these
responses, for the most part, were unrelated to program outcome. The only
question that was related to outcome was one that tapped the perceived
fairness of EM. Offenders who viewed the program as unfair were more
likely to not complete the program. Caution is advised in assigning too
much relevance to this observation. These questions were administered at
the end of the program after the outcome was known. Program failures
would have been more likely to give a negative evaluation of EM.
The variables that did not reach statistical significance were
instructive. Race (Aboriginal), marital status (single) and relying on
welfare were unrelated to program success/failure. Committing a violent
offence also did not predict failure on EM. In Saskatchewan, eight EM
offenders were convicted of sexual offences and all successfully
completed the program. However, once again, offender risk-needs scores
were important when explaining this result. The sex offenders were
relatively low risk and low needs (average score of 15.4 on the LSI-R and
7.0 on the Manitoba instrument).
From the 234 participants for whom we had sufficient information, 163
(69.7%) received some form of treatment. Treatment, for our purposes, was
broadly defined, ranging from the LRP in Newfoundland to Alcoholics
Anonymous. The program success rate for offenders receiving treatment was
actually lower (68.1%) than it was for those without any documented form
of treatment (81.5%). The difference however, was statistically
nonsignificant (X 2 = 2.02). Although the offenders receiving
treatment were higher risk offenders (e.g., 22.9 vs. 17.4 on the LSI-R,
df = 230, p < .001), introducing statistical controls for risk still
showed no relationship between general treatment and program outcome
(partial r = -.04).
In summary, offender risk-needs factors showed the most consistent
relationship to program outcome. Whether the program was court driven or
corrections based and whether supervision was provided by probation or
correctional staff was unrelated to program success/failure. When it came
to predicting program outcome, knowledge of the offender's measured level
of risk-needs was the most important factor. The next important question
is whether EM impacts on future recidivism?
Recidivism
Offender recidivism was defined as a new conviction within one year of
program completion. This information was taken from R.C.M.P. Criminal
History records and provincial databases. The recidivism rates one year
after completion of the EM program were similar across provinces.
Although Saskatchewan demonstrated the lowest rate, 17.3%, it was
statistically no different from the rate in B.C. (30.4%) and Newfoundland
(32.1%). A summary of the predictors of recidivism is shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Predictors of Recidivism for the EM Offenders
Variable
|
r
|
p
|
n
|
Risk-Need Factors:
|
|
|
|
Age
|
-.16
|
.01
|
261
|
# present offences
|
.20
|
.001
|
258
|
Arrested as a juvenile
|
.17
|
.01
|
259
|
Unemployed
|
.13
|
.05
|
261
|
Drug problem
|
.25
|
.001
|
260
|
LSI-R Total Score
|
.25
|
.001
|
260
|
Manitoba Risk-Needs Total Score
|
.26
|
.001
|
262
|
Personal-Situational:
|
|
|
|
Reliance on welfare
|
.23
|
.01
|
179
|
Lives in group residence
|
.36
|
.001
|
159
|
Program Activity and Perceptions:
|
|
|
|
# Visits to check equipment
|
.14
|
.05
|
232
|
Can discuss personal problems with officer
|
-.19
|
.01
|
191
|
Officer gave me real help
|
-.15
|
.05
|
189
|
Officer's view: EM beneficial for offender
|
-.18
|
.01
|
232
|
Officer's view: While on EM, crime prevented
|
.15
|
.05
|
231
|
Officer's view: Offender was successful in the program
|
-.22
|
.001
|
237
|
Note: Sample size varies due to missing information.
Three general sets of variables predicted post-program recidivism: 1)
offender risk-needs, 2) personal-situational, and 3) EM program
activities and perceptions. Variables such as age, unemployment and drug
abuse are well-established predictors of recidivism (Gendreau, Little,
& Goggin, 1996). These variables are reflected in the composite
measures of offender risk-needs and both the LSI-R and the Manitoba
Risk-Needs instruments showed significant correlations with recidivism
(r = .25 and r = .26 respectively). As we found with the
prediction of program failure, having committed a violent offence did not
predict recidivism. Moreover, none of the eight sex offenders recidivated
within the one year follow-up.
Reliance on welfare and living in a group residence predicted recidivism
with group residence yielding the highest correlation (r = .36).
However, the offenders who lived in halfway houses and other residential
facilities were also higher risk offenders. After controlling for
offender risk-needs, the association between living in a group residence
and recidivism remained statistically significant (r = .29, p <
.001).
Two variables directly associated with electronic monitoring predicted
recidivism: the number of visits to check equipment and the length of
time on the program. The recidivists had more visits for equipment checks
than the nonrecidivists (7.3 vs 5.3) and also shorter stays on the
program (63.5 days vs 81.0 days). However, once risk-needs levels were
factored into the equations, the relationships disappeared. That is,
higher risk clients were likely checked more frequently. Furthermore,
because higher risk offenders were probably placed into EM later in their
sentences and failed at higher rates than low risk offenders, they
consequently spent less time in the program.
The offenders who said that their supervising officers were easy to talk
to about personal problems and gave them "real help" were less likely to
recidivate. Research on behavioural influence has identified the
importance of a positive interpersonal relationship and some level of
comfort with the counsellor or therapist (Andrews & Kiessling, 1980).
The present findings support the importance of correctional staff
establishing a relationship with their clientele that is conducive to
behavioural change. Similarly, when staff felt that the program was
beneficial to the offender and helped offenders to avoid crime, the
post-program outcome appeared more favourable.
Offender treatment, broadly defined, was not related to recidivism.
Approximately two-thirds (69.7%) of the EM offenders participated in some
form of treatment. However, there were no statistically significant
differences in the recidivism rates between those who received treatment
(25.2%) and those who did not (25.4%). As discussed previously, treatment
at this general level included a wide range of programs (substance abuse,
life skills, sex offender treatment, etc.) using different formats (e.g.,
self-help groups, cognitive-behavioural interventions). Therefore, the
amorphous nature of these treatment programs may account for the lack of
differences in recidivism. A more detailed analysis of the impact of
treatment is reserved for the examination of the LRP in Newfoundland.
In summary, when we compared the EM programs from the three jurisdictions
we found no statistically reliable differences in recidivism. Almost all
the factors that predicted recidivism could be reduced to offender
risk-needs level. In other words, it did not matter whether an offender
was from the EM program in B.C., Saskatchewan or Newfoundland. Knowledge
of their risk-needs level was sufficient to explain future recidivism. If
the impact of variations in EM programs is almost negligible, does EM add
anything to the more traditional sanctions of imprisonment and probation?
The next section deals with this question.
The Effectiveness of Sanctions: EM vs Probation
vs Prison
In most evaluations of the impact of EM on recidivism, comparisons are
made to inmates without any controls for possible differences in offender
risk-needs level. In the present study, we too used an inmate comparison
group but with controls for the possible influence of offender risk-needs
level. Also available for comparison was a small sample of probationers
who were not subjected to EM. Consequently, we were in a position to
answer the following questions:
-
Are the recidivism rates of EM offenders different from the rates for
released inmates?
-
Are the recidivism rates of EM offenders different from the rates of
probationers?
There were 262 offenders who participated in the EM programs from the
three provinces. The inmates from the provinces formed the prison
comparison sample (n = 240) and the Saskatchewan and Newfoundland
probationers formed the probation comparison (n = 30). There were no
statistical differences in risk-needs scores for the inmates and
probationers from the various provinces. The recidivism rates for the
three groups were 26.7% for the EM participants, 33.3% for the
probationers, and 37.9% for the inmates (see Table 13).
Table 13. Recidivism and Mean Risk-Needs Scores Across Provinces and
Samples
|
|
EM
|
|
|
Prison
|
|
Probation
|
|
BC
|
SK
|
NF
|
|
BC
|
SK
|
NF
|
|
SK
|
NF
|
LSI-R
|
20.2
|
20.3
|
24.8
|
|
25.6
|
24.8
|
22.6
|
|
25.2
|
25.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
21.2
|
|
|
|
24.1
|
|
|
25.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manitoba Risk
|
9.8
|
9.4
|
10.7
|
|
12.2
|
10.9
|
10.6
|
|
11.8
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
9.9
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recidivism (%)
|
30.4
|
17.3
|
32.1
|
|
54.7
|
29.2
|
31.0
|
|
30.8
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
26.7
|
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
|
33.3
|
The recidivism rates appeared to favour the offenders who were in the EM
program (X 2 = 7.22, df = 2, p < .05). They had the lowest
recidivism rate (26.7%). However, the EM offenders also had statistically
lower LSI-R scores (21.2) than either the probationers (25.3) or the
prisoners (24.1; F (2, 527) = 9.25, p < .001). Scores on the Manitoba
Risk-Needs scale were 9.9 for the EM offenders, 10.6 for the probationers
and 11.1 for the prisoners (F (2, 531) = 8.58, p < .001). That is, the
lower recidivism rates found with the EM participants could be explained
by the differences in risk-needs levels among the groups. Further
analyses confirmed this hypothesis. When risk-needs scores were
introduced as a statistical control, differences in recidivism could not
be attributed to the type of sanction (i.e., EM, probation, or prison).
These findings have important implications for sentencing and
correctional methods of controlling criminal behaviour. First, if one of
the goals of sentencing and corrections is reduced offender recidivism,
EM has no added effect when compared to the other two correctional
options. Advocates of EM programming have argued that even if recidivism
is not reduced, it is certainly not increased. Therefore, EM offers a
more inexpensive alternative to imprisonment. To support their
conclusion, evidence is presented from evaluations using prison
comparison groups that show the EM offenders with lower recidivism rates
than released inmates. Unfortunately, no information on offender risk is
given in these evaluations and we suspect that the prisoners are higher
risk offenders to begin with. Even if these studies controlled for
offender risk, as in this study, the argument for using EM remains
plausible. However, the important question about the impact of EM on
recidivism is: "compared to what?"
When the recidivism rates of the EM offenders were compared to the
probationers, we found no statistically significant differences. The
recidivism rates for the EM offenders were 26.7% and it was 33.3% for the
probationers. Introducing risk-needs into the analysis did not alter the
general results. The adjusted rates were 27% and 31% (X 2 =
.59). Although the sample size of the probationers was small, when the
recidivism results from the prison comparison and risk-needs factors are
considered, we are left to conclude that adding electronic monitoring to
the supervision of offenders has little effect on recidivism.
The Newfoundland Treatment Program
If variations in sanctions show no relationship to offender recidivism,
then what impacts on recidivism? The general offender rehabilitation
literature suggests that appropriate offender treatment programs can make
a difference. Almost all the EM offenders in Newfoundland were required
to attend the Learning Resources Program (LRP). This is a relatively
intensive treatment program consisting of two and a half hours per day,
four days per week. An independent review of the program suggested that
the LRP appeared appropriate for offenders and "reductions in recidivism
in the range of 15-25% are expected" (Gendreau, 1996, p. 8).
An analysis of the risk-needs scores for the three groups of offenders in
Newfoundland found no statistically significant differences on either the
LSI-R, the Manitoba Risk-Needs scale or Newfoundland's Risk-Needs
classification instrument (a variation on the Wisconsin instrument).
Therefore, the probationers were combined with the EM offenders to form a
treatment group consisting of 71 offenders (the two EM offenders who were
employed and unable to attend the LRP were removed from analysis). This
treatment group was compared to the prison inmates (n = 100) who did not
participate in the LRP. We found no pre-existing differences between the
two groups. The treated and the untreated groups were similar in age,
grade level, number of present offences, prior convictions and their
length of sentences. They were also similar in their employment, marital
status and degree of substance abuse.
Preliminary analyses gave the appearance that treatment had no effect.
The recidivism rates for the treated and untreated (prison) groups were
nearly identical (32.4% vs. 31.0%; X 2 = .04). We had expected
that the treated offenders would have shown lower recidivism rates than
the untreated prison sample. However, one of the characteristics of
effective offender rehabilitation programs is that intensive services
directed to higher risk offenders would be more effective.
Intensive treatment services matched to low risk offenders typically show
either no effect on recidivism or, in some cases, a slight increase in
recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990).
Consequently, it was important to evaluate the program with respect to
the risk levels of the offenders.
Although, the program in Newfoundland accepted many higher risk-needs
offenders, there were also lower risk-needs offenders in the program. For
example, on the LSI-R, scores ranged from 13 to 43 for the offenders in
the LRP. Taking the median point on the LSI-R (score of 23) we
constructed a low risk (n =86) and high risk (n = 83) group of offenders
for both the LRP offenders (71) and the prison comparison group (100).
The recidivism rates for the four groups are shown in Table 14. Nearly
identical results were found when we used the Manitoba Risk-Needs
instrument with a median split at 10 (results for the Newfoundland scale
are not presented because scale information was missing on 39 offenders).
Table 14. Per Cent Recidivism as a Function of Risk Level and Treatment
(n)
Risk Level (LSI-R)
|
Treatment
|
|
Yes (LRP)
|
No (Prison)
|
Low
|
32.3 (10)
|
14.5 (8)
|
High
|
31.6 (12)
|
51.1 (23)
|
Note: n = number of recidivists.
A statistically significant interaction was found between treatment and
risk level (F (1,165) = 6.99, p < .01). As can be seen in Table 14, 12
of the 38 (31.6%) high risk offenders exposed to treatment recidivated
compared to 23 of the 45 (51.1%) high risk offenders who did not receive
treatment. On the other hand, the low risk offenders who received
treatment showed increased recidivism compared to the prison/no
treatment group (32.3% vs. 14.5%). This finding also explains why no
differences in recidivism were found when we simply compared the treated
offenders with the non-treated inmates. The effectiveness of the program
for higher risk offenders was masked by the fact that the lower risk
offenders showed increased recidivism.
The present results confirm the findings from the general literature on
offender rehabilitation. Structured, cognitive-behavioural interventions
can "work". Also consistent with the research literature was the result
that treatment is more effective when it is matched to higher risk
offenders even under conditions of intensive supervision (Gendreau et
al., 1994). From a program development perspective, there is a need to
improve the screening of offenders to the LRP program. Placing low risk
offenders into the treatment program had unintended consequences. Not
only were treatment resources wasted on these offenders but it also led
to increased criminal activity. Without direct evidence, we can only
hypothesise that the daily associations of low risk offenders with higher
risk offenders in the treatment program altered the reinforcement
contingencies for criminal thinking and behaviour.
Chapter V. General Summary and Conclusions
Much of the attraction to EM is the possibility of providing a
cost-effective alternative to incarceration without increasing the risk
to public safety. However, the evaluations reported in the literature are
difficult to interpret due to serious methodological weaknesses. Although
the present study has its own shortcomings, it does improve upon earlier
evaluations. Most notably, both prison and probation comparison groups
were used and the comparisons controlled for the influence of offender
risk and needs.
The three provincial programs differed in terms of who participated in
the EM program and how it was administered. The EM offenders from B.C.
appeared to be the least serious type of offender and we found
differences in the views of staff and offenders regarding the programs.
In general, EM programs where supervision came from probation officers
received more favourable ratings from the offenders than the program
where supervision was by officers coming from institutional settings.
Despite the fact that the general type of supervision given to EM
offenders was related to "consumer satisfaction", the overall program
completion rate did not differ across sites. That is, liking one's
supervising officer and the program did not translate into successful
program completion.
Analyses of offender characteristics and program features found that
program success was best explained by offender risk-needs level.
Knowledge of the offender's risk-needs score was sufficient to predict
whether they would successfully complete the program. It did not seem to
matter whether the EM program was court-based or corrections-based. The
high success rates reported by EM programs in this study, and in the
literature, may reflect little more than the likelihood that the programs
are dealing with relatively low risk offenders.
The recidivism analysis showed that EM does not have a post-program
impact on criminal behaviour. One of the most telling findings was that
the recidivism rate for the EM offenders was not different from the rate
for probationers after controlling for offender risk-needs scores. This
lack of difference questions the cost savings value of EM compared to the
community-based supervision offered by probation.
Consistent with the general offender literature, treatment was associated
with reduced recidivism. In particular, it was intensive treatment that
was directed to higher risk offenders that showed a positive effect.
Herein lies a potential advantage to using EM as a correctional option.
Higher risk offenders who would have normally served custodial sentences
were supervised in the community and demonstrated lower recidivism rates
following treatment than similar risk offenders released into the
community without treatment. In addition, the offenders who participated
in the LRP and who were under EM supervision were more likely to complete
the program than the probationers who attended the LRP. It appears that
EM may not only facilitate tolerance around releasing higher risk inmates
into the community, but it may minimise treatment drop-out. This said
however, there may be other less intrusive and costly interventions than
EM that can improve treatment participation.
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory
- Revised. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal
conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., &
Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A psychologically
informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and
effective correctional practices: A summary of the CaVIC research. In R.
R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional practice
(pp. 439-463). Toronto, ON: Butterworth.
Ball, R. A., Huff, C. R., & Lilly, R. J. (1988). House arrest and
correctional policy: Doing time at home. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ball, R. A., & Lilly, R. J. (1986). A theoretical examination of home
incarceration. Federal Probation, 50: 17-24.
Baumer, T. L., Maxfield, M. G., & Mendelsohn, R. I. (1993). A
comparative analysis of three electronically monitored home detention
programs. Justice Quarterly, 10, 121-142.
Beck, J., Klein-Saffran, J., & Wooten, H. B. (1990). Home confinement
and the use of electronic monitoring with federal parolees. Federal
Probation, 54, 22-31.
Bonta, J., Parkinson, R., Pang, B., Barkwell, L., & Wallace-Capretta,
S. (1994). The revised Manitoba classification system for
probationers. Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada.
British Columbia Corrections Branch. (1995). British Columbia Corrections
Branch electronic monitoring program. In K. Schulz (Ed.), Electronic
monitoring and corrections: The policy, the operation, the research.
(pp. 53-58). Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.
Canada. (1996). Corrections population growth: Report for
Federal/Provincial/Territorial ministers responsible for justice.
Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada.
Canada. (1998). Corrections population growth: Second progress
report. Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada.
Cullen, F. T., Wright, J. T., & Applegate, B. K. (1996). Control in
the community: The limits of reform? In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing
correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the
supply. (pp. 69-116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denton, M. (1988). Statistical report (Dec.), Harper Woods, Michigan.
Described in A. K. Schmidt, Electronic monitoring in the United
States. United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research
Institute, Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
Fox, R. G. (1987). Dr. Schwitzgebel's machine revisited: Electronic
monitoring of offenders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Criminology, 20, 131-147.
Gendreau, P. (1996). A review of the Learning Resources Program.
Report to Corrections Research, Solicitor General Canada. Ottawa,
Ontario.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1996). Correctional Programs
Assessment Inventory (CPAI, 6th Edition). Department of
Psychology, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick.
Gendreau, P., Cullen, F. T., & Bonta, J. (1994). Intensive
rehabilitation supervision: The next generation in community corrections?
Federal Probation, 58, 72-78.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the
predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology,
34, 575-607.
Lilly, R. J. (1992). Electronic monitoring: Another fatal remedy? In C.
A. Hartjen & E. E. Rhine (Eds.), Correctional theory and
practice (pp. 87-115). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Lilly, R. J., 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 and 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.
Mainprize, S. (1992). Electronic monitoring in corrections: Assessing
cost effectiveness and the potential for widening the threat of social
control. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34, 161-180.
Mainprize, S. (1995). Social, psychological, and familial impacts of home
confinement and electronic monitoring: Exploratory research findings from
British Columbia's pilot project. In K. Schulz (Ed.), Electronic
monitoring and corrections: The policy, the operation, the research.
(pp. 141-187). Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.
Maxfield, M. G., & Baumer, T. L. (1990). Home detention with
electronic monitoring: Comparing pretrial and postconviction programs.
Crime and Delinquency, 36, 521-536.
McGowan, J. (1988). Letter to the Honorable Nortan Josephson May 19.
Described in A. K. Schmidt, Electronic monitoring in the United States.
United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute,
Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
Mortimer, E., & May, C. (1997). Electronic monitoring in practice:
the second year of the trials of curfew orders. Home Office Research
Study 177. London, England: Research and Statistics Directorate, Home
Office.
Motiuk, M. S., Motiuk, L. L., & Bonta, J. (1992). A comparison
between self-report and interview-based inventories in offender
classification. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 143-159.
Nee, C. (1990). Electronic monitoring in England and Wales: Some key
issues. Research Bulletin #29. Home Office Research and Statistics
Department, London, England.
Nuffield, J. (1997). Diversion programs for adults. (User Report
No. 1997-05). Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada.
Ontario (1991). An evaluation of the electronic monitoring pilot
project: Mimico correctional centre, April, 1989 - October, 1990.
North Bay, Ministry of Correctional Services of Ontario.
Petersilia, J. (1988). House arrest. Report No. NCJ 104559.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Renzema, M., & Skelton, D. T. (1990). Use of electronic monitoring in
the United States: 1989 update. NIJ Research in Action, No. 222
(Nov./Dec.), pp. 9-13.
Rogers, R., & Jolin, A. (1989). Electronic monitoring: A review of
the empirical literature. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 5, 141-153.
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 Criminal Justice, 20, 141-157.
Whittington, M. (1987). Supervised electronic confinement pilot
program October 1986 - September 1987: Final report. Santa Anna, CA:
Orange County Probation Department.
|