NCJ Number
140106
Journal
Judicature Volume: 76 Issue: 3 Dated: (October-November 1992) Pages: 112-117
Date Published
1992
Length
6 pages
Annotation
The post-release records of 126 drug offenders sentenced in 1990-1991 to probation by house arrest with electronic monitoring were compared with the records of 200 drug offenders from the same three high-crime areas of Los Angeles sentenced to ordinary probation during the same period.
Abstract
For the first six months of their sentences, 43 percent of the non-monitored and only 34 percent of the monitored had their probation revoked for serious rule violation, and 45 percent of the monitored but only 28 percent of the non-monitored had no reports of rule violations. Most rule violations recorded for non-monitored probationers were "dirty" or missed drug tests, but most of those by monitored offenders were curfew violations. Appreciably better outcome rates with monitoring occurred primarily for those who were unemployed at sentencing. Most drug abusers with poor employment records but not particularly serious offense histories are best sentenced to electronic monitoring with drug testing as a way to change personal habits that impair their employability. Those drug abusers with little other criminality and fair to good job records are most cost-effectively deterred by fines, other monetary penalties, community service or a combination of these methods. 3 references and 2 tables