Since its introduction, electronically monitored home detention has become a common disposition throughout the United States. At the present time individuals at virtually every point in the criminal justice process are being monitored. This article describes studies of two populations. Preliminary results are presented from an evaluation of a pretrial home detention program. Salient differences are noted between the pretrial program and a similar program for convicted offenders delivered by the same agency, in the same jurisdiction. It is concluded that the nature of the client population significantly affects the design, delivery, and impact of electronically monitored home detention programs.
References
1.
Ball, Richard A.
, C. Ronald Huff, and J. Robert Lilly. 1988. House Arrest and Correctional Policy: Doing Time at Home. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Baumer, Terry L.
and Robert I. Mendelsohn. 1988. “Correctional Goals and Home Detention: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, November.
3.
Baumer, Terry L.
and Robert I. Mendelsohn. 1989. Draft Final Report for The Electronic Monitoring of Non-Violent Convicted Felons: An Experiment in Home Detention. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
4.
Berry, Bonnie
. 1985. “Electronic Jails: A New Criminal Justice Concern.”Justice Quarterly2:1-22.
5.
Boland, Barbara
, Catherine H. Conley, Lynn Warner, Ronald Sones, and William Martin. 1989. The Prosecution of Felony Arrests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
6.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
. 1989. Bulletin: Prisoners in 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
7.
Eisenstein, James
, and Herbert Jacob. 1977. Felony Justice. Boston: Little, Brown.
8.
Feeley, Malcolm
. 1983. Court Reform on Trial. New York: Basic Books.
9.
Friel, Charles M.
, Joseph Vaughn, and R. del Carmen. 1987. Electronic Monitoring and Correctional Policy: The Technology and its Application. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
10.
Gettinger, Stephen
. 1984. “Assessing Criminal Justice Needs.”National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
11.
Hofer, Paul J.
and Barbara Meierhoefer. 1987. Home Confinement: An Evolving Sanction in the Federal Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
12.
Jolin, Annette
. 1987. Electronic Surveillance Program Clackamas County Community Corrections Evaluation. Oregon City, OR: Clackamas County Community Corrections.
13.
Lilly, J. Robert
, Richard Ball, and J. Wright, 1987. “Home Incarceration with Electronic Monitoring in Kenton County, Kentucky.” Pp. 189-203 in Intermediate Punishment: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement, and Electronic Surveillance, edited by B. R. McCarthy. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree.
14.
Lipsky, Michael
. 1980. Street Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage.
15.
Petersilia, Joan
. 1987. Expanding Options for Criminal Sentencing. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
16.
Renzema, Marc
. 1989. “Annual Monitoring Census: Progress Report.”Journal of Offender Monitoring2:20-21.
17.
Schmidt, Annesley K.
and Christine Curtis. 1987. “Electronic Monitors.” Pp. 137-152 in Intermediate Punishment: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement, and Electronic Surveillance, edited by B. R. McCarthy. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree.
18.
Tonry, Michael
. 1990. “Stated and Latent Functions of ISP.”Crime and Delinquency36:174-191.
