Can Electronic Monitoring Reduce Reoffending?
Author: Jenny Williams
Author: Don Weatherburn
Abstract: We evaluate electronic monitoring as an alternative to prison for nonviolent offenses. Leveraging plausibly exogenous variation in sentencing outcomes generated by quasi-random assignment of judges, we find electronic monitoring reduces reoffending at both extensive and intensive margins. Compared with prison, electronic monitoring is estimated to reduce the probability of reoffending by 22 percentage points five years after sentencing and by 11 percentage points ten years after sentencing, with the cumulative number of offenses reduced by 40% ten years after sentencing. These results demonstrate that electronic monitoring has sustained crime-reducing effects.
Date: 2022-03-01
URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00954
Accessed: 9/13/2022, 3:22:36 PM
Volume: 104
Pages: 232-245
Publication: The Review of Economics and Statistics
Issue: 2
Reading Notes:
Objective: To understand the effect using electronic monitoring as an alternative to imprisonment has on reoffending
Importance: The popularity of electronic monitoring as an alternative to prison has been growing, but there has been limited evidence on its effects because those sentenced to electronic monitoring are typically different from those sentenced to prison
Jurisdictions use electronic monitoring in different ways
Background: Electronic monitoring has been available in New South Wales since 1997.
It allows people to serve sentences at home and only leave for employment, education, drug treatment & other medical appointments with approval. Random drug/alcohol tests.
Eligible offenders are those serving <18 months with no history of violent/threatening offending
Data & Key Variables:
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) Reoffending database - individual case-level data. 2000-2007 with follow-up period through 2016
Community corrections assessments for suitability for electronic monitoring
Sample: primary offenses eligible for electronic monitoring, Sydney, with judges that presided over 10+ eligible cases, not Aboriginal. 16,475 cases, 139 judges in 52 courts
Methodology: Quasi-random assignment of judges IV
Instrument: Judge-specific leave out mean rate of referral (ie excluding this case, how often does this judge refer cases to community corrections for assessment)
Results: Electronic monitoring reduces reoffending by 16 percentage points (from 58% to 42%) relative to imprisonment. The effect is driven by young offenders (<30 years old)
Key Table/Figure: