Electronic Monitoring in Denmark and Beyond

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12093
• Author: Randy Gainey
• Date: 01 August 2014
• Published date: 01 August 2014

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

ELECTRONIC MONITORING ON SOCIAL

WELFARE DEPENDENCE

Electronic Monitoring in Denmark and

Beyond

Randy Gainey

Old Dominion University

In the following research article, Andersen and Andersen (2014, this issue) examine

two changes in policy that expanded the use of electronic monitoring on offenders

sentenced to prison in Denmark. Rather than focusing on recidivism, which has been

so common in studies in the United States, Andersen and Andersen focus on howelectronic

monitoring affects welfare dependency (basically unemployment) among offenders in the

country. In a carefully orchestrated quasi-experiment, Andersen and Andersen find that

electronic monitoring reduces welfare dependency among young offenders but does not

have the same positive effects (or deleterious effects) among older offenders. Employment,

looking for employment, or job training, is a condition for being placed on electronic

monitoring in Denmark, and therefore, one might think that the relationship is tautological;

however,the research design by Andersen and Andersen includes similarly matched subjects

in the control group providing a strong test of the causal effects and the utility of electronic

monitoring in Denmark, with policy implications for if and how it might be effective

elsewhere.

The research article by Andersen and Andersen (2014) is followed by two policy

essays, by Brian K. Payne (2014, this issue) and Matthew DeMichele (2014, this issue),

respectively. You will detect some common themes in these essays, which is not surprising

as they have coauthored several articles together focused on electronic monitoring and

attitudes toward electronic monitoring in the United States. For example, both Payne and

DeMichele emphasize that electronic monitoring is just a tool and that like any other tool,

it can be effectively used for the appropriate purposes and of course ineffectively used where

it should never had been applied in the first place. This is no small point because electronic

monitoring has been heralded as a panacea by some and labeled a failure by others. It is just

Direct correspondence to Randy Gainey, Sociology & Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, 6014 Batten

Arts and Letters, Norfolk, VA 23529 (e-mail: rgainey@odu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12093 C2014 American Society of Criminology 345

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 13 rIssue 3