Community Service Versus Electronic Monitoring--What Works Better?: Results of a Randomized Trial

Abstract

The present study is based on a controlled experiment in Switzerland with 240 subjects randomly assigned either to community service or to electronic monitoring. Measures of outcome include reconvictions, self-reported delinquency and several measures of social integration such as marriage, income and debts. The findings, based on subjects who successfully completed their sanction, suggest, with marginal significance (p < 0.10), that those assigned to electronic monitoring reoffended less than those assigned to community service, that they were more often married and lived under more favourable financial circumstances. Electronic monitoring may be an alternative to noncustodial sanctions. With increasing demands for non-custodial sanctions, it is crucial having more alternatives available.

The Effects on Re‐offending of Custodial vs. Non‐custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge

“…However, dropping‐out concerned actually 2 subjects among the 41 assigned to prison (1 died, 1 emigrated) and 16 among the 100 assigned to community service (2 died, 4 emigrated, 3 were excluded from the program due to serious offences during the program, 2 fine‐defaulters paid their fine before executing community work, and 5 opted finally for short‐term imprisonment instead). As the authors (Killias et al 2010) observe, it is rather surprising that 39 of 41 among those assigned to prison, and 84 among the 100 sent to community work were still available for analysis. The objections made by Wermink et al (2010) concern actually 3 and 5 subjects, respectively.…”

“…Finally the Killias et al (2000, #03) experiment has been criticized for having overlooked that the correctional service kept the right to revoke community service (and replace it by prison), or that a small number of defendants finally opted, despite having been randomly assigned to community service, for (halfway) prison (Nieuwbeerta et al 2009). These cases have been correctly treated as drop‐outs and documented (Killias et al 2010, #U01). The truth is that no RCTs have ever been conducted without some subjects dropping out of the condition they were assigned to.…”

“…Unfortunately, the number of randomized trials has not increased over the last ten years. The only new RCT which came to our attention was indeed an update of an earlier trial (Killias, Ribeaud and Aebi, 2000, #03) that extended the post‐intervention period from two to eleven years and used more complete measures of social integration (Killias et al 2010, #U01). New examination of the original reports of all the RCTs led to the exclusion of one formerly included study (Bergman 1976, #02) because subjects had not been assigned randomly to the custodial or to the non‐custodial condition, as previously presumed (by our team as well as by Nagin, Cullen and Jonson 2009).…”

The impact of curfews and electronic monitoring on the social strains, support and capital experienced by youth gang members and offenders in the west of Scotland

“…Previous research (Hucklesby, 2008;Walter, 2002) suggests that curfew orders provide adult offenders with an opportunity to break away from activities and peer groups linked with their offending (Hucklesby, 2008(Hucklesby, , 2009Killias et al, 2010;Walter, 2002). Indeed, Hucklesby (2008: 66) highlights the way in which stand-alone EM curfews can facilitate 'habit breaking' and disconnection from criminal networks.…”

Strategies to Productively Reincorporate the Formerly-Incarcerated into Communities: A Review of the Literature

“…There is little rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of EM as a means of increasing supervision, but the research described in Section 9 suggests that such an application of this technology may be detrimental. That said, Killias et al (2010) describes an RCT in Switzerland that compares EM with community service, when used as diversion from short incarceration spells. Randomization to EM (which included a curfew) instead of community service had no significant effect on recidivism, and may have increased marriage and reduced poverty over the subsequent three years (the sample was small, and results were only marginally significant).…”