The two programs were delivered by the same agency in Marion County, Indiana with essentially the same technology, but the pretrial and postconviction programs differed in several ways: variations in clients; variations associated with program rationale; and differences in actual program operation. Both programs shared some problems in program delivery including limitations of the technology of electronic monitoring equipment. There often occurred a gap in the pretrial and postconviction programs between what clients were told to expect while on home detention and the limited capacity of staff to actually monitor them in the field. A fundamental problem in the pretrial program relates to the lack of any real power among program staff. It is unreasonable to expect that a postconviction program can be transferred directly to a pretrial population. 2 tables and 18 references
Downloads
Related Datasets
Similar Publications
- Evaluation of the Leadership Foundations' Mentoring Youth for Leadership Initiative: Evaluating Impact, Program Practices, and Implementation on High-Risk Youth
- States' SORNA Implementation Journeys: Lessons Learned and Policy Implications
- Programs and Services for Black Male Survivors of Community Violence: What’s Effective?