Effect of Electronic Monitoring on Social Welfare Dependence

• Date: 01 August 2014
• Author: Lars H. Andersen,Signe H. Andersen
• Published date: 01 August 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12087

RESEARCH ARTICLE

ELECTRONIC MONITORING ON SOCIAL

WELFARE DEPENDENCE

Effect of Electronic Monitoring on Social

Welfare Dependence

Lars H. Andersen

Rockwool Foundation Research Unit and University of Copenhagen

Signe H. Andersen

Rockwool Foundation Research Unit

Research Summary

Westudied the effect on social welfare dependence of serving a sentence under electronic

monitoring rather than in prison using Danish registry data and two policy shifts

that extended the use of electronic monitoring in Denmark. We found that electronic

monitoring is less harmful than imprisonment, at least for younger offenders, whereas

it does not leave older offenders worse off than imprisonment.

Policy Implications

As the United States moves toward noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment, pol-

icy makers might benefit from knowledge on experiences from other contexts. The

experiences from Denmark are clear: Electronic monitoring is less harmful than im-

prisonment to the life-course outcomes of offenders. Because electronic monitoring could

be less costly for the corrections administrations than imprisonment, efforts to extend

the use of electronic monitoring in the United States could be accelerated.

Keywords

causal inference, electronic monitoring, noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment,

register data, unemployment, welfare dependence

Although the incarceration rate in the United States still greatly exceeds that of

any other country throughout the world (e.g., Walmsley, 2011), the most recent

accounts of the number of imprisoned people in the United States tell us that

Direct correspondence to Lars H. Andersen, Rockwool Foundation Research Unit and University of

Copenhagen, Solvgade 10, 2, DK-1307 Copenhagen K, Denmark (e-mail: lha@rff.dk).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12087 C2014 American Society of Criminology 349

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 13 rIssue 3

Research Article Electronic Monitoring on Social Welfare Dependence

mass imprisonment might have passed its peak and is now in decline (e.g., Carson and

Golinelli, 2013). In many ways, this news is good, as imprisonment is costly in a double

sense. Not only is it costly to keep people in prison (e.g., Kyckelhahn, 2013), but also

these individuals contribute less to society, as they cannot take up employment and make

a living for themselves and their families during imprisonment. Numerous studies have

documented the devastating consequences of imprisonment for the future life chances of

offenders (e.g., Western, 2006) and their families (e.g., Wakefield and Wildeman, 2013).

Even though the number of people under community supervision in the United States

has greatly increased since the early 1980s, the recent decline in the number of imprisoned

Americans has largely been fueled by policy changes, in particular changes that favor

noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment (Phelps, 2013). One tool central to the policy

changes has been the use of electronic monitoring. Here, an electronic device monitors the

offender by means of either radio frequencies or global positioning system. This device has

been used as a pretrial supervision alternative to local jail, as a requirement for offenders

placed on community supervision, and as a parole requirement for serious offenders released

on parole (Bales et al., 2010).

Rising prison populations and increasing prison expenditures also has led other coun-

tries to adopt noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment. For example, in Denmark, elec-

tronic monitoring was first introduced in 2005 and is now a noncustodial alternative to

short prison sentences, just as there are current considerations to mandate electronic moni-

toring for prisoners released on early parole, as is the case in many other European countries

(Kalmthout and Durnescu, 2008).

The anticipated benefits of electronic monitoring over imprisonment are many (e.g.,

Bales et al., 2010). First, electronic monitoring eases the challenges of prison overcrowding,

as the offender does not enter prison. Second, electronic monitoring is usually cheaper than

imprisonment, as a smaller prison staff is needed to perform the monitoring now automated

by the electronic device. Third, electronic monitoring allows the offender to keep his or her

job (or keep searching for a job) and take care of his or her family while serving the sentence

or awaiting trial.

Yet although the policy changes that favor noncustodial alternatives to imprisonment

sweep confidently across the developed world, empirical research evaluating them is falling

behind, leaving a significant gap between the anticipated benefits of noncustodial alternatives

to imprisonment, such as electronic monitoring, and the knowledge we have of these benefits

(Subramanian and Shames, 2013).

To provide new knowledge, this study analyzes the effects of electronic monitoring

on social welfare dependence in Denmark. For this purpose, we use Danish population

data coupled with data from the Danish Prison and Probation Service, and we include

individuals who experienced electronic monitoring and imprisonment before and after two

policy reforms that expanded the use of electronic monitoring in Denmark in 2006 and

2008. As the reforms are exogenous to offender characteristics, our estimates of the effects

350 Criminology & Public Policy