1 / 14

Is Electronic Monitoring More Effective than Community Service? Results of a Randomized Trial

Is Electronic Monitoring More Effective than Community Service? Results of a Randomized Trial. Gwladys Gilliéron Izumi Kissling Martin Killias University of Zurich. Methodology. Randomised controlled trial comparing electronic monitoring (EM) with community service (CS)

risa-caldwell
Download Presentation

Is Electronic Monitoring More Effective than Community Service? Results of a Randomized Trial

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is Electronic Monitoring More Effective than Community Service?Results of a Randomized Trial Gwladys Gilliéron Izumi Kissling Martin Killias University of Zurich

  2. Methodology • Randomised controlled trial comparing electronic monitoring (EM) with community service (CS) • Random assignation of 240 subjects between June 2000 and December 2002 to CS (120) or EM (120)

  3. Sample

  4. Collected data • Re-offending: Criminal records • Social integration: data from the Internal Revenue Service

  5. Procedure • Different reference dates: • Day of random assignment to EM or CS • Beginning of execution • End of execution • Period of observation: • 3 resp. 4 years before and after reference date • p-value of .10 as threshold for significance

  6. Prevalence of pre- and post-assignment criminal records

  7. Incidence of pre- and post-assignment criminal records *Mann-Whitney Test ° = (t-4)-(t+4) ° = (t-3)-(t+3) °°= ((t-4)-(t+4))/(t-4) °°= ((t-3)-(t+3))/(t-3)

  8. Results: Criminal records • Choice of reference date has little influence on results • Period of observation (3 vs. 4 years) has little impact on results, but more significant results after 3 years (more subjects) • Re-offending decreases in both groups • Less re-offending after EM (overall, 5 comparisons out of 12 are significant at p<.10))

  9. Social integration • Procedure • Files of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the Canton of Vaud • Records include data on income, faculty/debts, welfare benefits and other financial information, on social background (marriage, separation, divorce, number of children)

  10. Tax payers‘ recordSubjects from the two groups located in the IRS of the Canton Vaud (N=183) (year searched: 2004) • Tax declaration 2004: • EM: 80% (N=64) • CS: 73.3% (N=66)

  11. Marriage status among EM and CS subjects in 2004 (N=130, one person without indication)

  12. Financial status of subjects according to IRS data

  13. Summary • Differences between EM and CS on reconvictions favour consistently EM • Overall, 5 comparisons on re-offending out of 12 are significant (p<.10) • Few significant differences between EM and CS on social integration • More subjects got married after EM • Financial status is better after EM • No differences regarding employment history • Undetermined: is EM more effective, or is there a placebo effect at work?

  14. Thank you for your attention!

More Related