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

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

3. 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

4. © 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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