Corrections- Final Exam Study GuideElectronic Monitoring as an Effective Correctional StrategyElectronic monitoring (EM) boom• Jessica Lunsford Act• Advances and improvements in technology• Shift from Radio Frequency (RF) to Global Positioning Systems (GPS)-Research has not kept paceFlorida is appropriate for EM research for the following reasons:1. EM used for over 20 years for felony offenders2. Several supervision types3. EM population significant – 2,392 on June 30, 2009Background of EM in FL• EM authorized by the Florida Legislature in 1987, and the FDOC began using radio frequency (RF) in 1988 for offenders sentenced to community control, commonly known as “house arrest.” • Active global positioning system (GPS) was the second EM technology, implemented in Florida in 1997.• Offenders monitored with active GPS are required to wear ankle bracelets that communicate with a larger device carried by offenders at all times, called a monitoring tracking device (MTD).• The MTD communicates with a satellite and transmits a signal to a monitoring center through a cell phone within the device.• The MTD has an LCD screen to display messages to offenders from supervising officers.• Officers are able to track the exact location of offenders on a computer screen to determine whether they have violated their conditions of supervision by entering prohibited areas. Jessica Lunsford Act• The EM program in Florida changed dramatically as a result of the Jessica Lunsford Act (JLA), passed in 2005.• Jessica Lunsford was a nine-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by a previously convicted sex offender.• The JLA amended many offenses to make punishments more severe, established more severe penalties for sex offenders who fail to register with authorities, created mandatory electronic monitoring provisions for certain offenders, and appropriated funding for EM. • Requires EM for prison releasees designated as sexual predators or for offenders who are over the age of 18, who violate certain statutes involving a victim under the age of 15.• Florida Statute § 948.11, titled “Electronic Monitoring,” was amended to require “probationers, community controlees, or conditional releasees who have a current or prior conviction for violent or sexual offenses” to be monitored by a “system that actively monitors and identifies the offender’s location,” i.e., GPS technology.• Requires mandatory EM for sexual predators, probationers, and community controlees 18 years or older, whose victims were under age 15 and who committed crimes on or after September 1, 2005 or have been previously convicted of violating certain statutes.• Mandates that sex offenders or sexual predators, 18 years or older, who victimize persons under the age of 15 and have had a probation or community control sentence revoked, arerequired to be placed on active GPS if the sentencing judge places the offender on community supervision.• In FY2005-06 the JLA appropriated $3,928,860 of recurring general revenue for the purpose of increasing the number of GPS units by 1,200. The cost of EM• Radio Frequency (RF) is the least expensive form of EM at $1.97 per day in 2008. The cost only covers the services from EM provider in relation to the equipment, not the extra staff time required.• GPS costs $8.94 per day with $1.00 of that daily cost for the Monitoring Center• Annual cost of active GPS equipment and services provided is $3,263. • The per diem equipment and vendor services costs for RF and GPS have declined between 2005 and 2008.The cost of imprisonment vs. EM• EM and is explicitly designed to divert offenders from a state prison sentence or to keep those who have post-prison supervision from returning to prison.• In comparison to the cost figures of EM devices noted previously, the average daily cost of prison operations per inmate was $55.09 per day, or $20,108 per year, in FY2007-08.• This does not include the cost of constructing new prisons or expanding existing facilities, which resulted in an expenditure of $107,441,753 in FY2007-08 (FDOC).• Another way to compare the cost of EM relative to incarceration is that six offenders could be placed on active GPS or 28 could be on RF for one year relative to one inmate being housed in a correctional facility for one year.• These relative costs of using electronic surveillance to more closely monitor high risk offenders on community supervision versus housing them in state prison speaks to the importance of determining if EM is effective in preventing felons from absconding, violating their conditions of supervision, or committing new crimes and jeopardizing public safety.• Additionally, it is possible to better identify those offenders who are high risk and would likely have been sentenced to prison but are low risk while under community supervision because of the electronic tether, policy makers can possibly save taxpayers millions of dollars by avoiding the cost of the construction of new prisons and the high reoccurring cost of housing inmates.Analytical results• EM reduces the likelihood of failure under community supervision. The reduction in the risk of failure is about 31%, relative to offenders not placed on EM.• GPS has more of an effect on reducing failure than RF technology. There is a 6% improvement rate in the reduction of supervision failures for offenders placed on GPS supervision relative to offenders placed on RF supervision.• EM supervision has less of an impact on violent offenders than on sex, drug, property, and other types of offenders, although there are significant reductions in failure rates for all of these offense types.• There are no major differences in the effects of EM supervision across different age groups.• There were no major differences in the effects of EM for different types of supervision.Officers EM and Non-EM caseloads• EM cases do not make up the bulk of officers’ caseloads.• Almost 50% of the officers had two or few EM cases.• Officers had an average of 30 Non-EM cases.• 25% had 15 to 25 Non-EM cases.• 39% had 25 to 35 Non-EM cases.• 14% had 45 or Non-EM more.Impact of EM on offenders’ significant others and children• During the time of interview, 23% of the offenders were married, 39% were in a relationship, 25% were single, and 13% had been separated or divorced.• Of those who were married or in a relationship, only