Electronic Monitoring Research Library: Academic Studies, Government Reports & Policy Analysis Index

Electronic Monitoring Reduces Recidivism

Padgett, K.G., Bales, W.D., & Blomberg, T.G. (2006). Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 61-91.

Key Finding: GPS-monitored offenders in Florida experienced a 31% reduction in recidivism compared to non-monitored counterparts. The study analyzed 75,661 offenders placed on home confinement in Florida between 1998-2002.

Methodology: Quasi-experimental design using propensity score matching across medium and high-risk offender populations in Florida’s community supervision system.

Impact: This remains the most-cited study supporting GPS monitoring effectiveness. Referenced by NIJ, multiple state legislatures, and vendor marketing materials industry-wide.

Source: NIJ Summary

The Use of Electronic Monitoring as Persuasive Technology: Reconsidering the Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring

Belur, J., et al. (2020). British Journal of Criminology, 60(5), 1160-1181.

Key Finding: Systematic review of 42 studies found mixed evidence for EM effectiveness — results depend heavily on implementation quality, target population, and what EM replaces (incarceration vs. standard supervision).

Methodology: Systematic literature review covering 1990-2018, evaluating both GPS and RF monitoring studies globally.

GPS Monitoring and Domestic Violence Recidivism

Erez, E., Ibarra, P.R., & Lurie, N.A. (2012). Justice Quarterly, 29(6), 827-854.

Key Finding: GPS monitoring in DV cases was associated with reduced re-offending, but effectiveness depended on offender risk level and program implementation. Victim satisfaction with GPS monitoring was notably high.

Rivera et al. — Cook County Pretrial GPS Study

Rivera, R., et al. (2024). American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.

Key Finding: Pretrial GPS monitoring in Cook County (Chicago) reduced failure-to-appear (FTA) rates and did not increase pretrial misconduct. The study provides causal evidence using a randomized controlled trial design.

Methodology: Randomized controlled trial in Cook County Circuit Court — one of the first true RCTs on pretrial GPS monitoring.

Impact: Published in a top economics journal, this study provides the strongest causal evidence to date supporting pretrial GPS monitoring as an effective alternative to cash bail.

Pretrial Risk Assessment and Electronic Monitoring

Lowenkamp, C.T., VanNostrand, M., & Holsinger, A. (2013). Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Key Finding: Risk assessment tools combined with appropriate supervision levels (including EM) can significantly improve pretrial outcomes. Low-risk defendants do not benefit from intensive monitoring and may experience negative effects.

Unsecured Bonds: The As Effective and Most Efficient Pretrial Release Option

Jones, M.R. (2013). Pretrial Justice Institute.

Key Finding: Analysis of pretrial release outcomes in Colorado found that electronic monitoring was more effective than financial bonds for ensuring court appearance among medium-risk defendants.

Evaluating the Use of GPS Monitoring for Domestic Violence Cases

Ibarra, P.R., & Erez, E. (2019). NIJ-funded research, Journal of Experimental Criminology.

Key Finding: GPS bilateral monitoring (monitoring both offender and victim) provides superior protection compared to offender-only monitoring. Proximity alerts allow proactive intervention before contact occurs.

Impact: Directly informed DV GPS legislation in multiple states. CO-EYE’s AMClient app implements the bilateral monitoring model described in this research.

Electronic Monitoring and Domestic Violence: An Assessment

Black, M., & Smith, R.G. (2003). Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 261. Australian Institute of Criminology.

Key Finding: Early assessment of EM for DV identified both potential benefits (real-time alerts, evidence generation) and limitations (technology failures, false sense of security for victims).

NIJ Market Survey of Location-Based Offender Tracking Technologies

Kandaswamy, S. (2016). JHU/APL for the National Institute of Justice.

Key Finding: Comprehensive technical evaluation of 16 GPS ankle monitoring devices from 8 manufacturers, including positioning accuracy, battery life, tamper detection, and communication protocols.

Methodology: Lab and field testing using NIJ Standard 1004.00 evaluation criteria at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

Impact: The most authoritative third-party technical evaluation of GPS ankle monitors ever published. Devices evaluated include BI LOC8, SCRAM, 3M WMTD, OmniLink OM210/OM400, Buddi, Geosatis, Laipac S911, and Track Group ReliAlert/Shadow.

Source: NIJ Publication Library

NIJ Standard 1004.00 — GPS Location-Based Offender Tracking Device Performance Standards

National Institute of Justice (2016).

Key Content: Defines performance benchmarks for GPS ankle monitors: 10-meter accuracy threshold (95% CEP in open sky), 30-meter urban threshold, tamper detection response time, battery life minimums, and communication reliability standards.

Source: NIJ Standard Document

GPS Monitoring Practices in Community Supervision

DeMichele, M. (2014). Journal of Offender Monitoring.

Key Finding: Survey of 229 U.S. probation/parole agencies found significant variation in GPS monitoring practices, including alert management, officer response protocols, and technology utilization.

People on Electronic Monitoring in the United States

Vera Institute of Justice (2024).

Key Finding: Estimated 254,700+ individuals on electronic monitoring in the U.S. as of 2023, a dramatic increase from approximately 53,000 in 2005. The EM population has grown 380% in less than two decades.

Methodology: Survey of state DOCs, county agencies, and federal programs combined with BJS data extrapolation.

Impact: The most current and comprehensive count of the U.S. EM population. Widely cited in policy debates about surveillance expansion and criminal justice reform.

Source: Vera Institute

RAND Corporation — Electronic Monitoring in the Criminal Justice System

Doleac, J.L. (2022). RAND Corporation Research Report RR-A108-10.

Key Finding: Comprehensive policy analysis evaluating EM as an alternative to incarceration, finding that EM programs can reduce costs by 60-80% compared to incarceration while maintaining comparable public safety outcomes for appropriate populations.

Source: RAND Corporation

Grady v. North Carolina (2015) — U.S. Supreme Court

575 U.S. 306 (2015).

Key Holding: The Supreme Court held that GPS monitoring constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search,” requiring the government to demonstrate reasonableness. This landmark ruling applies Fourth Amendment scrutiny to all government-mandated electronic monitoring.

No More Than a Spreadsheet: The Case for Decarceral Electronic Monitoring

Kilgore, J. (2022). University of Illinois Press.

Key Argument: Argues that EM should be evaluated strictly as an alternative to incarceration (not as an add-on to existing supervision), and that current implementations often expand the net of surveillance rather than reducing it.

European Committee on Crime Problems — Electronic Monitoring in Europe

Nellis, M. (2014). Council of Europe.

Key Finding: Comprehensive survey of EM programs across 27 European countries found wide variation in technology, legal frameworks, and implementation approaches. England & Wales and the Netherlands had the largest European EM populations.

Evolution of Electronic Monitoring in Poland

Stańdo-Kawecka, B. (2020). European Journal of Probation.

Key Finding: Poland’s EM program grew from pilot to national rollout, demonstrating that even countries without Anglo-American community corrections traditions can successfully implement large-scale electronic monitoring.

Continuous Transdermal Alcohol Monitoring: A Primer for Criminal Justice Professionals

Leffingwell, T.R., et al. (2013). Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.

Key Finding: Transdermal alcohol monitoring (e.g., SCRAM CAM) provides continuous, real-time alcohol detection with clinical-grade accuracy. False positive rates are extremely low (<1%) but false negatives can occur with brief drinking episodes.