How effective is EM ? Some reflexions on evaluation by René Lévy (CESDIP/CNRS, France) Copyright R. Lévy, CESDIP-CNRS

Two main issues addressed in this paper Costs of EM Direct costs Cost-effectiveness evaluations Impact on recidivism During EM After EM © R. Lévy

Correctional services © R. Lévy French estimates of the per diem unit cost of sanctions or penal mesures (€)  € Warsmann Report (2003) Fenech Report (2005) Court of Accounts (2006) Correctional services € Senatorial Report (2009) Tagging 22 11 10 — 13.75 Tracking - approx 60 30 Semi-liberty 20-30 27.63 External placement 12-18 Jail 55.80 60 39 80

© R. Lévy U.S Estimates of the per diem unit cost of sanctions or penal mesures ($) US $ EM-RF EM-GPS active EM-GPS passive Traditional supervision Imprisonment FLORIDA (2010) 8.60 11.33 23.66 -- 55.09 CALIFORNIA (2012) Sex offenders 35.96 27.45 129.00 CALIFORNIA (2013) Gang members   21.20 7.20 Maryland Task Force (2005) 9 to 12 5 to 9 > 65.00

Cost-effectiveness of EM Target population Type of EM Control group Cost-effective ? CALIFORNIA (Gies et al. 2012) High Risk Sexual Offenders Active GPS Probation YES SAN DIEGO (Omori/Turner, 2012) NO (Gies et al. 2013) Gang members BUENOS AIRES Di Tella/Schargrodsky, 2013) Pretrial (mixed) RF Pre-trial imprisonment WASHINGTON DC (Roman et al., 2012) (simulation) Mixed GPS © R. Lévy

Conclusions on costs Cost-effectiveness estimates are based on complex economic models : shouldn’t be taken for granted Unit cost and total cost are two very different things No savings unless EM substitutes for a more expensive sanction

Various impacts of EM Reduction of prison overcrowding Reduction of re-offending Effects on monitored subjects and family Impact on victims Net-widening issues © R. Lévy

Difficulties of evaluation: 3 factors Versatility of EM Multiplicity of objectives Complexity of evaluation © R. Lévy

Versatility of EM Diversity of target populations and offenses Various stages of penal process: pre-trial, trial, post-trial, post-penal Multiplicity of protocols © R. Lévy

Multiplicity of objectives Alternative to short-term imprisonment Rehabilitation Incapacitation Early release transition Support to other treatment options Reduction of recidivism Protection of victims Tracking inmates in minimum security prisons Etc. © R. Lévy

Feasability of evaluation Experimental design: ethical, technical and political issues Quasi-experimental design: less controversial but possible biases: Results are relative to control group, not absolute © R. Lévy

Reoffending after EM Sweden San Diego Buenos Aires Switzerland Target © R. Lévy Reoffending after EM Target Type of EM Control group Length of follow-up Less re-offending ? Sweden (Markus/Holmberg, 2009) Early release (mixed) RF No early release 3 years YES San Diego (Turner/Jannetta, 2007, 2010°) High Risk Sexual Offender Active GPS Probation 18 months NO Buenos Aires (Di Tella & Schargrodsky, 2013) Pretrial (mixed) Pre-trial imprisonment Switzerland (Killias et al. 2010) Community service

Conclusion: Does EM work ? Overall too little evaluation research, esp. European Recent research points towards effectiveness but cannot be generalised Aims ought to be clarified for better tuning and targeting EM is here to stay, although not an evidence-based policy: hence , ethical issues of primary importance © R. Lévy