Editing Electronic tagging (section)

== Effectiveness ==
[[File:Ankle monitor for electronic tagging.jpg|thumb|upright|An ankle monitor used for electronic tagging in Massachusetts]]
The use of ankle bracelets, or other electronic monitoring devices, have proven to be effective in research studies and possibly deter crime.<ref name="Stuart S Yeh, 2010">Stuart S Yeh (2010). "Cost-benefit analysis of reducing crime through electronic monitoring of parolees and probationers". ''Journal of Criminal Justice''. 1090–1096.</ref>

Several factors have been identified as necessary to render electronic monitoring effective: appropriately selecting offenders, robust and appropriate technology, fitting tags promptly, responding to breaches promptly, and communication between the criminal justice system and contractors. The [[Quaker Council for European Affairs]] thinks that for electronic monitoring to be effective, it should serve to halt a developing criminal career.<ref name="Quaker Council for European Affairs 2010">{{Cite web|url=http://www.qcea.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/rprt-alternatives-en-jan-2010.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.qcea.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/rprt-alternatives-en-jan-2010.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Quaker Council for European Affairs (2010). "Investigating Alternatives to Imprisonment"}}</ref>

The [[National Audit Office (United Kingdom)|National Audit Office]] in England and Wales commissioned a survey to examine the experiences of electronically monitored offenders and the members of their family. The survey revealed that there was common agreement among survey respondents that electronic monitoring was a more effective punitive measure than fines, and that it was generally more effective than community service. An interviewed offender is credited with saying: "You learn more about other crimes [in prison] and I think it gives you a taste to do other crimes because you've sat listening to other people."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-electronic-monitoring-of-adult-offenders/|title=The Electronic Monitoring of Adult Offenders - National Audit Office (NAO) Report|website=National Audit Office|date=February 2006 }}</ref>

In 2006, Kathy Padgett, William Bales, and Thomas Bloomberg conducted an evaluation of 75,661 Florida offenders placed on home detention from 1998 to 2002,<ref name="Stuart S Yeh, 2010"/> in which only a small percentage of these offenders was made to wear an electronic monitoring device. Offenders with electronic tagging were compared to those on home detention without. The factors thought to influence the success or failure of community supervision, including type of electronic monitoring device used and criminal history, were measured.<ref name="Padgett">Kathy Padgett, William Bales and Thomas Blomberg (2006) "Under Surveillance: An Empirical Test of the Effectiveness and Consequences of Electronic Monitoring" Criminology and Public Policy, pages 61 - 91 .</ref> The results showed that offenders who wore electronic tags were both 91.2 percent less likely to abscond and 94.7 percent less likely to commit new offenses, than unmonitored offenders.<ref name="Padgett"/>