Federal prisons have experienced an unprecedented increase in the number of incarcerated offenders for the past two and a half decades. There was an 80 percent increase in the prison population from 1990 to 2000.³ In 2008, an all time high number of 2.3 million people were behind bars. The well-intentioned tougher sentences of “three strikes” laws, and “mandatory minimums,” have increased the number of offenders incarcerated in the Florida prisons. The high costs of incarceration now trump higher education costs in some states.⁴ The Pew Research Center estimates the nation’s yearly cost of incarceration to be about 50 billion dollars. The more offenders in prison the more money the state has to pay to house, supervise and rehabilitate them each year. The costs of incarceration come out of the state’s primary pool of discretionary dollars. This means for every dollar spent on incarceration, less money is spent on education and social services. The money to pay for all of these services comes out of the same general discretionary fund.

Florida prisons have been charged by the state to reduce correction costs. “Florida law permits the court to order electronic monitoring for any convicted offender who is placed on probation or community control or as post-release supervision” (The Florida Senate 2011). Pew Charitable Trusts (2009) estimates the average daily cost of incarcerating a federal prisoner in 2008 was $78.95. Schmitt, Warner & Gupta’s research (2010) shows the cost of a community surveillance program without electronic monitoring is about $3 to $10 per day. Klein-Saffran’s research⁵ shows the cost of community surveillance with electronic monitoring is approximately $13.50 per day. Electronically monitoring offenders would relieve the state of a huge financial burden. The Florida Department of Corrections published the 1995-1996 annual report which showed the age group of 18 to 24 years old comprised the largest percentage of offenders released on community control. The most common types of offenses among this age group are violence and drugs. About 35 percent of these offenders were placed on community control without electronic monitoring, 36 percent of them were placed on Radio Frequency (RF) electronic monitoring, and 29 percent of them were placed on Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) electronic monitoring. Offenders under the age of 18 and over 40 had the smallest number of placements in all three programs. The 2004-2005 annual report showed similar results for this age group. However, sexual offenders comprise the largest group for being placed on Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) electronic monitoring, about 29 percent according to the Florida Department of Corrections.⁶

Electronic tracking devices date back to 1919 to track cargo being transported to other states and overseas, but not for tracking humans. The idea of using electronic monitoring to track humans began in 1964 by Ralph Schwitzgel, in particular to monitor offenders. It was first implemented by the Department of Corrections in the 1980’s.⁵ A federal prison in Palm Beach County, Florida began using Radio Frequency (RF) in 1984 to monitor offenders under house arrest. Offenders wear a small transmitter that communicates by radio signals. The cost to monitor an offender using radio frequency devices is about $1.97 per day (Florida Senate, 2011). Another type of device that uses radio signals is the Global Positioning System (GPS). Offenders wear an ankle bracelet that contains the GPS monitoring system. The passive and active GPS systems were used on offenders from 2003 to 2006. The cost to monitor an offender with a GPS device is about $4.00 per day. Monitoring offenders electronically has increased dramatically since 1980. This method of monitoring has saved the states millions of dollars each year. The 2006 report by the Florida Department of Corrections shows radio frequency monitoring was used from 1993 to 1998. From 1999 to 2006 the placement pendulum swung from radio frequency to global position monitoring (GPS). A report by Klein-Saffran⁵ states it costs $13.50 per day to put a Federal offender on an electronic monitoring program. Pew Charitable Trusts (2009) estimates the average daily cost of incarcerating a prisoner in 2008 was $78.95. That means a savings of $65.45 per prisoner per day. The question is how accurate and reliable are these devices and how effective is electronic monitoring for reducing recidivism?

The criminal justice community defines recidivism as criminal behavior after being convicted, punished, rehabilitated and released. In other words, repeat offenders are known as recidivists. Another term used for criminal recidivism is habitual offenders. Someone who has committed two or more felonies or numerous misdemeanors will be labeled as a habitual offender. Recidivism is short for repeated or habitual criminal behavior. The increased prevalence of recidivism reflects the increased number of people in prisons, therefore recidivism is proportionate to increased prison population. A national recidivism study published in 1983 and 1984 tracked release prisoners in 15 states for three years. The findings from this study showed two-thirds of those prisoners released in the U.S. were rearrested and re-incarcerated for new crimes within three years. Recidivism rate was up by 5 percent since the prior national study in 1983. Offenders with the highest re-arrest rates are robbery, violence, burglary, drugs and weapons offenses. Prisoners with the lowest re-arrest rates are sexual and murder offenses. However these offenses are treated much differently than other types of offenses and they make-up a small percentage of the prison population. The ocer all findings of the study showed 30 percent of offedners released from prison were reincarcerated within six months, 44 percent reincarcerated within a year, 59 percent within two years, and 67 percent near the end of three years.⁷ The Bureau of Justice Statustics reports that 16 percent of one million prisoners nationwide released on parole supervision in 2007 were reincarcerated during that same year. What we don’t know is how many of those offenders were monitored electronically and those that were electronicaly monitored what was the cause for recidivism.

Disruptive innovation is defined as innovation that is highly revolutionary or discontinuous nature, in which customers embrace new paradigms in favor of the old.⁸ Instead of sustaining or making incremental improvements to existing technologies, disruptive innovation applies new technologies, or combinations of technologies, to market new opportunities,⁹ that produce new products, services or business models. These innovations bring different value propositions to new market contexts that did not need all the performance offered by incumbents⁸ After taking root in a simple, undemanding applications, disruptive innovations inexorably gets better until they “change the game” (Gharajedaghi 1999), displacing established incumbent organizations. Ahuja and Lampert¹⁰ have expanded on those ideas by showing how technological breakthroughs can lead to potentially disruptive innovations and how it can be developed though exploring: ‘novel technologies’, ‘emerging technologies’, and, ‘pioneering technologies’. Disruptive innovation is prevalent in industry and some areas of government such as education, healthcare, and social services. Disruptive innovation has not been addressed in the US Department of Justice though it clearly exists. A prime example of electronic monitoring and disruptive innovation in prisons is in Rock County jail in Florida. Rock County had plans to build a 56 million dollar extension to the overpopulated county jail. Their plans were cancelled when electronic monitoring program led to a significant decline in the prison population and the occupancy fell far below capacity and saved the county 56 million dollars.¹¹ Wood¹¹ indicates that these innovative technologies force the criminal “to monitor himself….effectively outsourcing the role of prison guard to prisoners themselves”. How did the introduction of low-cost monitoring device technology disrupt the traditional incumbent role of the U.S. prison system?

Community Control I is a form of intensive supervised custody in the community, including surveillance on weekends and holidays, administered by officers with limited caseloads. It is an individualized program in which the freedom of the offender is restricted within the community, home or non-institutional residential placement, and specified sanctions are imposed and enforced. As with probation, violation of any community control condition may result in revocation by the court and imposition of any sentence which it might have imposed before placing the offender on community control supervision. Many of the offenders who are placed on community control are prison diversions. Community Control II uses electronic monitoring as an enhancement to community control and continues to receive judicial approval. Electronic monitoring exists in all twenty (20) judicial circuits in the state of Florida. These units are monitored on a 24 hour a day basis by private vendors who immediately report all violations to probation staff for further investigation. So the question is whether delivering less to more people through community control II is just as effective as community control I. What are the tradeoffs in terms of quality of community supervision and recidivism rates. The main objectives for finding ways to ease overcrowding in prisons and reduce recidivism are driven by economic and political pressures. The innovation of electronically monitoring offenders might turn out to be an inferior way of reducing recidivism and may even compromise the safety of the community. The electronic monitoring system is an example of disruptive innovation in government by delivering less direct community supervision and rehabilitation services to more offenders.¹²

This pilot study also evaluated electronic monitoring technology subject to disruptive innovation. For the purpose of this study, disruptive technologies are defined as technologies that enable a product to have features suitable for new business models but leads to disruptive innovation as described by Tellis:¹³

New technology initially underperforms the dominant one along the dimensions mainstream customers in major markets have historically valued.

Has new technology has other technical performances that new or non-consumption customers’ value.

Products based on disruptive technology are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, or more convenient than those established on dominant technology.

Overview of design

The objectives of this study is to

1. Identify prisons that use electronic tracking devices to monitor low-level offenders and collect data on recidivism and type(s) of electronic tracking devices used;
2. Evaluate and compare the use of electronic monitoring devices with traditional release programs and
3. Evaluate the hypotheses that electronic monitoring technology is an example of disruptive innovation in government and the tracking devices do not manifest a significant reduction in recidivism.

The specific aims of this study are pursued through a secondary data analysis using aggregate data sets. With aggregate data, associations can only be measured among these groups by comparing group information on a risk factor with the rate of an outcome. The advantage of aggregate data is its availability. The major drawback is the fact that associations are especially susceptible to confounding variables. Groups tend to differ from each other in many ways, not all of which are causally related. Furthermore associations observed in the aggregate do not necessarily hold true for the individual. Aggregate data will be used to test the plausibility of new hypotheses.

Aggregate datasets from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) were used to determine the impact of electronically monitoring offenders and recidivism. The Florida Department of Correction’s Offender Based Information System (OBIS) is a data management system of offenders under its jurisdiction. The aggregate data provided group information about community control for offenders from year 2005 through year 2007 with and without electronic monitoring. Florida Department of Corrections authorities use this data to monitor and document activities of offenders on community control. To measure recidivism and account for effects of factors known to influence recidivism rates, the FDOC data contains information about type of offenses, sentencing and monitoring. Releases subsequent to a return to prison for technical violation of supervision conditions are not treated as additional releases, because this would artificially lower the recidivism rate.

Secondary data analysis was used to answer the following research questions:

1. Was there any relation between electronic monitoring devices and recidivism among low-level offenders?
2. Was there any relation between technological advances of electronic monitoring on recidivism among low-level offenders?
3. Are the technological advances of electronic monitoring devices a form of disruptive innovation in government?

Research results showed the following:

1. Electronic monitoring does not significantly reduce recidivism; and
2. Electronic monitoring technology is an example of disruptive innovation in government.

The results from this study can be pursued in additional studies using individual data to study whether electronic monitoring devices reduce rate of crime if a prisoner is released from prison and being watched by any one of the electronic monitoring system. In order to study this we need the data corresponding to the number of prisoners under EM each month and the number of offenders arrested after committing another crime.

The data corresponding to number of offenders arrested during each month of the period was split into two,

1. Original/new offenders and
2. Offenders under post prison.

Our aim of study led to the fact that offenders under post prison falls under electronic monitoring/another monitoring devices, under the assumption that they are arrested earlier for another crime and send outside the prison with proper monitoring system, being low level offenders/or reduce the cost of keeping them inside the prison.

Offenders under EM were divided into three, Probation, Community Control and Post prison. From this sub division it is clear that offenders under post prison are monitored by more than one device. Since the number of offenders released under EM corresponding to each month/time period not available, a statistical study is difficult to test whether EM is a good tool for reducing recidivism. From the available data and considering the assumptions given above, the possible conclusion is:

1. From January 2005 to December 2007, only 0.72 % of total prisoners were arrested under EM.
2. In the same period, 20.11% of prisoners in post prison were arrested under EM and 2.15% of offenders in post prison category were arrested under the post prison category in EM.

If all the offenders released from prison were monitored by any one of the electronic monitoring device, then it was possible to conclude that EM was a good tool for controlling repeated crime. (Only 2.15% fall under this category compared to 20.11% under post prison).

1. Using regression analysis, I selected the number of prisoners under ‘post prison’ in the group of total prisoners as independent variable y and number of offenders arrested under ‘post prison’ of electronic monitoring as depended variable x, to do the study .
2. Consolidating the data for 3 years, the regression lines are Y=1.54x+5168 and x=.003957y+94.
3. The correlation between the number of offenders under ‘post prison’ category and the number of offenders arrested using EM under the ‘post prison’ category is 0.60307. They are positively correlated, that means increase in one quantity increases the other and vice versa. The use of electronic monitoring device to monitor prisoners outside the prison is effective but it doesn’t mean that recidivism rate reduced by using electronic monitoring.

The finding that many offenders report electronic monitoring to does not significantly deter criminal behavior is unquestionably noteworthy. However, establishment for the veracity of these self-proclaimed reports that truly reduce criminal conduct has to be done. Results of outcome evaluations have are limited by the methods they utilize, making any firm conclusions regarding their merits difficult to ascertain. Differences in outcome indices examined, risk levels of offenders included, supervision regimes and incorporation of program components, also create multi-studies comparisons difficult, thus having equal importance in defining the relative “success” of EM programs. Recidivism and release violations could also be reviewed to determine commonly addressed outcome measures.