Home      Login

Abstract: 

This article collects 22 studies published between 2013 and 2025 on EM’s effectiveness and implementation. The studies cluster into three broad categories: 1) 1.Custody-Substitution Research—Studies evaluating EM as an alternative to incarceration, measuring its effects on reoffending, mortality, and labor outcomes. Examples include Henneguelle et al. (2016, France), Al Weswasi & Bäckman (2024, Sweden), Grenet et al. (2024, Sweden), and Di Tella & Schargrodsky (2013, Argentina). These use strong quasi-experimental or instrumental-variable designs, often leveraging national administrative data. 2) Community-Supervision and Pretrial Research—Studies examining EM as a condition of probation, parole, or pretrial release, including Bouffard & Butler (2024), Dhungana Sainju et al. (2018), Grommon et al. (2017), and two MDRC reports (2023). These studies typically use matched-sample comparisons or statewide administrative data to estimate outcomes such as violations, re-arrest, and court appearances. 3) Technology and Implementation Research—Work focused on how EM tools operate: technical reliability, data security, user experience, and legal or ethical considerations. Examples include Owens et al. (2022) on smartphone apps, the NIJ’s CJTEC (2023) technology brief, and the UK’s HM Inspectorate of Probation (2022) practice guide. These studies, while not measuring crime outcomes, reveal the practical factors that make EM succeed or fail in the field. The conclusion one can draw from these studies is that the courts and corrections can and should be making greater use of GPS, smartphone, and other monitoring technologies, and the research summarized here points the way to how that ought to happen. This article will be available free until April 30, 2026

Keywords: Electronic Monitoring Research; Custody-Substitution; Community-Supervision and Pretrial; Technology and Implementation

Affiliations:  1: Journal of Offender Monitoring.