9 ~,~i - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

182 THE PRISON JOURNAL / June 1993
the most difficult offenders already on probation or parole caseloads, and
these ISPs normally do not use exclusionary criteria (Byrne, Lurigio, &
Baird, 1989). Unlike their predecessors in the 1960s, most modern ISPs are
unabashedly "tough" in their stance with offenders, although a handful
advertise a treatment orientation.
ELECTRONIC MONITORING
The "hottesf' of the new alternatives is not ~i program per se but, instead,
a technique applied within a program. Made possible by recent technical
advances in computers and telephones, electronic monitors are devices that
emit a coded signal to a receiver. When these devices are attached to the body
(usually the wrist or ankle) the signal can be used to indicate the offender's
whereabouts--and especially to certify that the offender is home in accordance
with a curfew or court order (Schmidt, 1989).
The use of monitors is in its technical and experiential infancy, and
although the early results of these programs are intriguing, there is as yet no
basis to say whether they succeed. Early experiments reported considerable
technical problems, although many of these problems appear to have been
eradicated in revised units. They are, however, expensive, running as much
as $300 per month (although most units are considerably cheaper). Many
programs therefore restrict themselves to offenders who are able to pay for
the equipment, those who have telephones, and those whose offenses are
nonviolent.
URINE TESTING
Like electronic monitoring, urine testing is not a program but a surveillance
component that can be used in conjunction with any correctional
program, even incarceration. These tests not only indicate whether a person
has been using a substance, but they also indicate which substances. When
urine testing is done with any population, a high proportion of "hits"
(indicators of substance use) is found--but this is especially true for offender
groups (Wish & Gropper, 1990).
Questions have been raised about the accuracy of urine tests, but research
consistently shows that when recommended procedures are followed, the test
results are highly reliable. For this reason, the high level of drug Use in
arrested offenders (ranging across the country from 50% to over 80%) is
remarkable evidence about the extensiveness of drug involvement in this
population.
28