Search results

Showing 1 – 4 of 4 results.

Curated

Electronic Monitoring of Nonviolent Convicted Felons: An Experiment in Home Detention in Marion County, Indiana, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 9587)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States

Time period: 1986-11-01--1988-12-01

The purpose of the study was to provide information about home detention monitoring systems and to evaluate their effectiveness. The principal investigators sought to determine (1) whether electronic monitoring systems relieved some of the burdens associated with manual monitoring of home detention, such as making telephone calls and field visits, (2) how home detention affected the lifestyles of offenders, (3) whether the methods of monitoring influenced offender behavior during the program, (4) how electronic monitoring differed from manual monitoring in terms of supervision of the offenders, (5) how offenders reacted to electronic monitoring, (6) how offenders' families reacted to electronic monitoring, and (7) whether the method of monitoring influenced the probability of an arrest or subsequent contact with the criminal justice system after release from the program. Part 1 contains demographic information, such as age, race, marital status, number of children, living arrangements, employment, and education for each offender. Also included is information on the offense leading to the current case, including numbers and types of charges and convictions for both felonies and misdemeanors, recommendations and judicial disposition for the current case, and information on the criminal history of the offender. Part 2 contains data from the intake interview with the offender, such as information on the offender's family, living arrangements, education, employment, past alcohol and drug use, and expectations for the home detention program and monitoring procedures. Part 3 contains information collected in the exit interview and is similar in content to Part 2. Part 4 contains information on the program delivery (type of release from the program, violations of the program, results of tests for alcohol and drug use, errand time, payment, contacts with offenders, and the characteristics and results of the contacts with electronically monitored offenders). Part 5 is a check of criminal histories of offenders for at least one year after their release from the program.

Curated

Evaluation of GPS Monitoring Technologies and Domestic Violence in the United States, 2001-2009 (ICPSR 33723)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2006-07-01--2008-07-01, 2001-10-01--2007-01-01, 2008-01-01--2009-01-01

This study examines the implementation and effectiveness of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring technology to enforce court mandated "no contact" orders in domestic violence (DV) cases, particularly those involving intimate partner violence (IPV). The project has two components: First, a national web-based survey of agencies providing pretrial supervision examined patterns of GPS usage among electronic monitoring (EM) programs for DV cases. Second, a quasi-experimental design study of three sites across the U.S. - referred to as Midwest, West, and South - examined the impact of GPS technology on DV defendants' program violations and rearrests during the pre-adjudication period (referred to as the "short term"), and during a one-year follow-up period after case disposition (referred to as the "long term").

Curated

Pretrial Home Detention with Electronic Monitoring: An Evaluation in Marion County, Indiana, 1988-1989 (ICPSR 9734)

Released/updated on: 1992-03-04

Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States

Time period: 1988-01-01--1989-01-01

For this data collection a pretrial home detention program in Marion County, Indiana, that relied on electronic monitoring of clients was subjected to a nonexperimental evaluation. The data address whether the pretrial electronic monitoring program was effective in ensuring that clients appeared at their court hearings, whether the pretrial electronic monitoring program was effective in ensuring public safety, and the extent to which field contact officers experienced difficulties in attempting to contact clients. To gauge the success of the program, investigators compared the number of successful terminations (i.e., home detention followed by a court appearance) to the number of unsuccessful terminations (technical violations and absconding). Each client in the pretrial program was fitted with a coded wristlet that matched a base unit receptacle. A successful contact between the coded wristlet and the base unit verified the client's presence. Defendants on home detention were monitored by a field contact officer. Variables in this collection include charged offense, prior criminal history, living arrangements, employment status, number of telephone calls, summary of program violations, reason for program termination, program entry and termination dates, and disposition after program release. The unit of observation is the individual program client.

Curated

Restricted

Research and Evaluation in Justice Systems, Multi Jurisdiction Research on Automated Reporting Systems: Kiosk Supervision, 2012-2015 [United States] (ICPSR 36311)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-20

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2012-01-01--2015-01-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The Multi-jurisdiction Research on Kiosk Supervision examined the prevalence of kiosk reporting, implementation experience of agencies using it, and outcomes and costs associated with its use. A telephone screener survey of 492 community supervision agencies nationally in 2012 identified 21 agencies currently using kiosk reporting, agencies that formerly used it, and those that considered but decided against using kiosk reporting. Telephone interviews with 30 agencies and site visits with five agencies measured the benefits and limitations of kiosk reporting and the issues for adopting and implementing kiosk reporting systems. This information served as the basis for a guidebook on kiosk reporting developed for community supervision agencies.

Two outcome studies assessed the effectiveness of kiosk reporting for low-risk clients on public safety outcomes, relative to traditional face-to-face officer reporting and another electronic reporting approach. These studies analyzed administrative data from two large community supervision agencies, which used separate quasi-experimental designs for each site. At one of the sites, two separate designs and datasets were used to compare kiosk reporting and traditional face-to-face officer reporting on outcomes over a 6-month period. At the other site, clients assigned to kiosk supervision were compared to clients assigned to telephone reporting with interactive voice response (IVR) over a 6-month period.