U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

IN 

short

Toward Criminal JusTiCe soluTions SEPT. 2011 

NCJ 234460 

Electronic Monitoring Reduces 

Recidivism 

A large NIJ-funded study of Florida offenders 

placed on electronic monitoring found that monitoring significantly reduces the likelihood of failure 

under community supervision. The decline in the 

risk of failure is about 31 percent compared with 

offenders placed on other forms of community 

supervision. 

Researchers from Florida State University’s 

Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research 

compared the experiences of more than 5,000 

medium- and high-risk offenders who were monitored electronically to more than 266,000 offenders not placed on monitoring over a six-year 

period. The researchers worked with the Florida 

Department of Corrections to secure approval, 

obtain administrative data, and gain help in contacting local probation offices for interviews. The 

researchers interviewed offenders, probation officers, supervisors and administrators to uncover 

insights into the electronic monitoring process. 

IncreasIng Use of electronIc MonItorIng 

States now use electronic monitoring in a wide 

variety of settings, such as a pretrial supervision 

alternative to jail, an alternative to imprisonment 

for some offenders, and a mandated supervision 

requirement for some felons released from prison. 

Some states now mandate electronic monitoring 

for released sex offenders. More than 5 million 

offenders in the United States are under some form 

of community supervision, according to the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics. Electronic monitoring may 

increase over time as states seek less expensive 

alternatives to imprisonment. The cost of imprisonment is about six times higher than the cost of electronic monitoring.1 

Florida has used electronic monitoring of released 

felons for decades, mostly on higher risk offenders. The first home confinement program that used 

electronic monitoring started in Florida’s Palm 

Beach County in 1984. At the end of June 2009, the 

state had 143,191 offenders on supervision, including 2,392 under electronic monitoring. 

To assess the impact of electronic monitoring, 

researchers gathered information on people under 

supervision between June 1, 2001, and June 30, 

2007. Using Florida’s risk classifications, the research focused on medium- and high-risk offenders. The sample included 5,034 medium- and 

high-risk offenders on electronic monitoring and 

266,991 offenders who were not placed on electronic monitoring. In addition, the researchers interviewed 105 offenders. Offenders were selected for 

interviews using convenience sampling. Visits were 

made to geographically strategic probation offices 

throughout Florida during reporting week for 

offenders. Probation officers referred offenders to 

the researchers in a private room to receive an 

explanation of the study, consent process and interview. The interviewed sample included mostly 

medium- and high-risk offenders. Of this group, 97 

percent were under electronic monitoring; the rest 

had been on monitoring devices before the interview. The researchers also interviewed 36 probation officers who oversee such offenders and 20 

administrators who oversee the program. 

Office of Justice Programs n Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods n www.ojp.usdoj.gov

short
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 overall fIndIngs 

The quantitative analysis showed significant decreases in the failure rate for all groups of offenders, and 

the decreases were similar for all age groups. More 

specifically, the analysis showed that: 

n	 Electronic monitoring reduces offenders’ risk of 

failure by 31 percent. 

n	 Electronic monitoring based on Global Positioning Systems (GPS) typically has more of an 

effect on reducing failure to comply than radio 

frequency (RF) systems. 

n	 Electronic monitoring had less of an impact on 

violent offenders than on sex, property, drug 

and other types of offenders. However, the 

effect remains statistically significant. 

The qualitative analysis revealed various perceptions 

about electronic monitoring. For administrators, the 

primary goals of the electronic monitoring program 

are to ensure that offenders comply with the terms 

of their supervision, track offenders, reduce recidivism and protect the public. Overall, administrators 

say that although electronic monitoring has achieved 

these goals, they also see ways to improve the system. In addition, they see monitoring as a tool that 

helps probation officers do their jobs, not as a 

replacement for personal contact with offenders. 

Sometimes the offenders and officers voiced different opinions. For example, 85 percent of offenders 

said electronic monitoring does not affect the likelihood that they would abscond. In contrast, 58 percent of officers thought electronic monitoring made 

it less likely that an offender would abscond. 

PercePtIons of the effects on Personal 

relatIonshIPs 

Many probation officers and offenders believe that 

monitoring has a negative impact on offenders’ 

relationships with their spouses, children and 

friends. Some 43 percent of the offenders believed 

monitoring had a negative impact on their partners because it created an inconvenience. Of the 

officers interviewed, 89 percent felt that offenders’ 

relationships with their significant others changed 

because of being monitored. 

In addition, most offenders said they felt a sense 

of shame about being under electronic monitoring 

and felt they were unfairly stigmatized. Some said 

media reports about monitoring focus mostly on 

sex crimes, which may lead the public to believe 

that everyone who is monitored is a sex offender. 

One offender said the electronic monitoring system 

“serves as a scarlet letter.” Another reported, “Every 

time it goes off, we think the police are coming to 

arrest me.” Perhaps the most poignant comments 

concerned the effects on children. One offender 

said, “I’ve got a child who straps a watch on his 

ankle to be like daddy.” Another said, “When it 

beeps, the kids worry about whether the probation 

officer is coming to take me to jail. The kids run for 

it when it beeps.” 

PercePtIons of the effects on eMPloyMent 

and hoUsIng 

Offenders and officers alike were almost unanimous 

in their belief that the visibility of the monitoring 

systems makes it much more difficult for offenders 

to obtain and keep a job. Offenders told stories of 

job interviews taking on a different tenor as soon 

as an interviewer noticed the devices. In addition, 

sometimes the systems would issue an alarm 

because the signal had been lost when offenders 

were inside a building. They would then have to 

take a break from work and walk outside, often for 

15 minutes, before the signal was reestablished. 

This did not please employers. Of the offenders 

interviewed, 22 percent said they had been fired or 

asked to leave a job because of electronic monitoring. Of that group, 32 percent assigned the cause 

to signal loss. Others cited various reasons, such 

as limits on their flexibility (related to work hours 

or distance from work). Five percent said they were 

fired because their bosses did not want customers 

to see the monitoring devices. 

Electronic monitoring did not deter offenders from 

finding housing. However, the various residency 

controls on sex offenders did have an impact. 

Some courts mandate that offenders repay the state 

for the cost of electronic monitoring. Offenders 

often had trouble paying. The monthly costs determined by the court were waived for 39 percent of 

the offenders. Among the remaining 61 percent 

of offenders who were ordered to pay, 53 percent 

were not paying each month. The average monthly 

cost paid by offenders was $64. 

how electronIc MonItorIng works 

Electronic monitoring was approved by the Florida 

legislature in 1987, and the Florida Department of 

Corrections started using RF systems in 1988 for 

house arrest cases where offenders were required 

to be home during certain hours of the day. RF systems use a device that alerts supervising officers 

when offenders violate home curfews. An RF ankle 

bracelet worn by the offender communicates with a 

base unit connected to the landline at the offender’s 

home. The unit alerts a monitoring center when the 

offender moves beyond a predetermined distance 

from the base unit during specific times. 

Florida started using GPS technology in 1997. This 

technology uses global positioning satellites to 

track offenders’ movements in real time. Offenders 

wear an ankle bracelet that communicates with a 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

larger device that they must carry. The device is 3 

about 5 inches wide, 2 inches thick and 5 inches 

tall and must be visible. It is a distinctive piece of 

equipment that is noticed by others. The monitoring device communicates with a satellite and sends 

a signal to a monitoring center using a cell phone 

system. The device also has a screen that displays 

messages from supervising officers, who are able 

to track the exact location of offenders on a computer screen and see when they enter restricted 

zones. Officers can set up exclusion zones for various purposes. For example, they may set up an 

exclusion zone around a victim’s house or place 

of work. Sex offenders may be required to avoid 

locations such as daycare centers or schools. The 

system sends an alert to a supervising officer if the 

offender enters an exclusion zone. 

A third type of monitoring is passive GPS. These 

systems store GPS data throughout the day and 

then send a day’s worth of information to a supervising officer. Florida started using this technology 

in 2001 but ended it in 2006 because of the cost. 

oUtlook 

Many probation officers thought the courts should 

concentrate monitoring efforts on high-risk offenders who pose the most risk to the public. 

About a third of the offenders would have served 

time in prison if the electronic surveillance alternative had not been available. Thus, the monitoring 

gives offenders much more freedom despite any 

drawbacks involved in wearing a visible device. 

Given the cost savings involved, policymakers may 

want to consider expanding monitoring programs. 

The complete report is available at http://www.ncjrs. 

gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/230530.pdf. 

for More InforMatIon 

n NIJ's Corrections website: http://www.nij.gov/ 

topics/corrections 

n Electronic Monitoring Resource Center, funded 

by NIJ: https://emresourcecenter.nlectc.du.edu/ 

n	 National Law Enforcement and Corrections 

Technology Center, Justice Technology 

Information Network (Justnet): 

n	 Community Corrections: http://www.justnet.

org/pages/Topic.aspx?opentopic=46&topic=47

n Corrections Technology Center of Excellence: 

http://www.justnet.org/corrections_coe/pages/

home.aspx

note 

1. William Bales, Karen Mann, Thomas Blomberg, 

Gerry Gaes, Kelle Barrick, Karla Dhungana and 

Brian McManus, “A Quantitative and Qualitative 

Assessment of Electronic Monitoring,” January 

2010, p. 150, final report submitted to NIJ, grant no. 

2007-IJ-CX-0017, NCJ 230530. 

This document is not intended to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent 

a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The 

products and manufacturers discussed in this document are presented for informational purposes only and do not constitute product approval or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Justice. 
4

 

 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/NIJ
 

PERmIT NO. G–91
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice *NCJ~234460*

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

NIJ Journal NIJ’s award-winning magazine is published several times a year. 

TechBeat This award-winning, free quarterly news magazine focuses on technology 

developments in law enforcement, corrections and forensic sciences. 

Publications Receive an e-mail whenever NIJ posts a new publication or multimedia. 

& Multimedia 

Funding Receive an e-mail whenever NIJ issues a solicitation. 

Subscribe to Information From NIJ

Toward Criminal JusTiCe soluTions 

IN 

short

NCJ 234460