Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Program in Lake County, Indiana: An Evaluation (From Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s, P 21-35, 1995, John Ortiz Smykla and William L Selke, eds. -- See NCJ-167581)

• NCJ Number: 167583
• Author(s): S Roy; M P Brown
• Date Published: 1995
• Length: 15 pages
• Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This study evaluates the impact of the electronically monitored home detention program for juvenile offenders in Lake County, Ind.

Abstract

The program was begun in February 1990. An experimental design was used to focus on the program's impact on the participating offenders. Two types of home detention are used with juveniles in Lake County: electronic monitoring and "in- house" or manual. In this study electronic monitoring was used as an experimental group and in-house/manual was used as a comparison group. The program's impact was measured in terms of offender compliance with home detention requirements and offender recidivism subsequent to successful exit from home detention. The dissimilarities between the two groups resulted in differences between them in terms of offenders successfully completing home detention and offenders recidivating during the follow-up period, after their successful release from home detention. The experimental group had a higher percentage of program completion (90.3 percent) than the comparison group (75 percent). Also, the experimental group had a lower recidivism rate (16.9 percent) than the comparison group (25.9 percent) during the follow-up period. Although the electronic monitoring program has curbed overcrowding at the detention center, its use has widened the net for intensive supervision of juvenile detention in the county. Because electronic monitoring is a more efficient form of tracking juveniles than manual home detention, noncompliance is more readily documented, and the activities of participants are more closely supervised. Reducing offender recidivism after release is a reasonable program goal. It is now time to involve more high-risk offenders in this supervision and then evaluate the program's impact on a varied range of offenders, from low- risk to high-risk.