Factors Associated with Breaches of Home Detention and Returns to Custody Post-Home Detention in South Australia

References

• Australian Productivity Commission 2018, Report on Government Services, Part C, Table CA. 4, viewed 21 July 2018, http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/justice#attachtables.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, RA, Huff, CR & Lilly, JR 1988, House arrest and correctional policy: doing time at home, Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, RA & Lilly, JR 1986, ‘A theoretical examination of home incarceration’, Federal Probation, vol. 50, pp. 17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, L & Martinovic, M 2017, ‘Electronic monitoring: the experience in Australia’, European Journal of Probation, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 80–102.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, JL & Klein-Saffran, J 1989, Community control project: interim report, United States Parole Commission, Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Black, M & Smith, RG 2003, Electronic monitoring in the criminal justice system, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, JM, Lurigio, AJ & Petersilia, J 1992, Smart sentencing: the emergence of intermediate sanctions, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
   Google Scholar
• Clear, T & Braga AA 1995, ‘Community corrections’ in JQ Wilson & J Petersilia (eds.), Crime: twenty-eight leading experts look at the most pressing problem of our time, Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco.
   Google Scholar
• Dodgson, K, Goodwin, P, Howard, P, Llewellyn-Thomas, S, Mortimer, E, Russell, N & Weiner, M 2001, Electronic monitoring of released prisoners: an evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew scheme, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London.
   Google Scholar
• Dodgson, K, Mortimer, E & Sugg, D 2000, Assessing prisoners for Home Detention Curfew: a guide for practitioners, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London.
   Google Scholar
• Doherty, D 1995, ‘Impressions of the impact of the electronic monitoring program on the family’ in K Schulz (ed.), Electronic monitoring and corrections: the policy, the operation, the research, Simon Fraser University, Canada, pp. 129–39.
   Google Scholar
• Finn, MA & Muirhead-Steves, S 2002, ‘The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees’, Justice Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 293–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, RG 1987, ‘Dr Schwitzgebel's machine revisited: electronic monitoring of offenders’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 131–47.
   Google Scholar
• Geis, SV, Gainey, R, Cohen, MI, Healy, E, Duplantier, D, Yeide, M, Bekelman, A, Bobnis, A & Hopps, M 2012, Monitoring high-risk sex offenders with GPS technology: an evaluation of the California Supervision Program final report, Development Services Group Inc, Bethesda.
   Google Scholar
• Geis, SV, Gainey, R, Cohen, MI, Healy, E, Yeide, M, Bekelman, A & Bobnis, A 2013, Monitoring high-risk sex offenders with GPS technology: an evaluation of the California Supervision Program final report, Development Services Group Inc, Bethesda.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, A & King, D 2003, ‘The electronic ball and chain? The operation and impact of home detention with electronic monitoring in New Zealand’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grogger, J 1995, ‘The effect of arrests on the employment and earnings of young men’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 51–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilferty, F, Lafferty, L, Valentine, K, Cale, J & Zmudski, F 2018, ‘Changes to home detention in South Australia: evaluation design and early implementation findings’, Advancing Corrections, vol. 5, pp. 31–44.
   Google Scholar
• Joutsen, M & Zvekic, U 1994, ‘Noncustodial sanctions: comparative overview’ in U Zvekic (ed.), Alternatives to imprisonment in comparative perspective, Nelson-Hall Publishers, United States.
   Google Scholar
• LeBel, TP 2012, ‘Invisible stripes? Formerly incarcerated persons' perceptions of stigma’, Deviant Behavior, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 89–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopoo, LM & Western, B 2005, ‘Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital unions’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 67 no. 3, pp. 721–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marie, O, Moreton, K & Gonclaves, M 2011, The effect of early release of prisoners on home detention curfew (HDC) on recidivism, Ministry of Justice, London.
   Google Scholar
• Marklund, F & Holmberg, S 2009, ‘Effects of early release from prison using electronic tagging in Sweden’, Journal of Experimental Criminology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 41–61.
   Google Scholar
• Martinovic, M 2007, ‘Home detention: issues, dilemmas and impacts for detainees' co-residing family members’, Current Issues Criminal Justice, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 90–105.
   Google Scholar
• Martinovic, M 2013, The evolution of home detention based sanctions frameworks in the USA and Australia up to 2013: a comparative case study, RMIT University, Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Martinson, R 1974, ‘What works? Questions and answers about prison reform’, The Public Interest, vol. 35, pp. 22–55.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, N & Tonry, M 1990, Between prison and probation: intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system, Oxford University Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Nellis, M 2013, ‘Surveillance, stigma and special constraint: the ethical challenges of electronic monitoring’ in M Nellis, K Beyens & D Kaminski (eds.), Electronically monitored punishment: international and critical perspectives, Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• New South Wales Law Reform Commission 2013, Sentencing, viewed 15 July 2018, http://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/Reports/Report-139.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• New South Wales Government State Parole Authority 2015, Home detention orders, viewed 15 July 2018, http://www.paroleauthority.nsw.gov.au/Pages/Function/home-detention.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Northern Territory Government 2017, Home detention, viewed 15 July 2017, https://nt.gov.au/law/prisons/home-detention.
   Google Scholar
• Padgett, KG, Bales, WD & Blomberg, TG 2006, ‘Under surveillance: an empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring’, Criminology and Public Policy, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 61–91.
   Google Scholar
• Pager, D 2003, ‘The mark of a criminal record’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 108, no. 5, pp. 937–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, D, De Lint, W & Dalton, D 2015, Crime and justice: a guide to criminology, 5th edn., Thomson Reuters, Pyrmont.
   Google Scholar
• Renzema, M 2003, Electronic monitorings impact on reoffending, Campbell Collaboration, Kutztown.
   Google Scholar
• Renzema, M & Mayo-Wilson, E 2005, ‘Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate high risk offenders?’, Journal of Experimental Criminology, vol. 1, pp. 215–37.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, JV 2004, The virtual prison: community custody and the evolution of imprisonment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, G, McNeill, F & Maruna, S 2013, ‘Punishment in society: the improbable persistence of probation and other community santions and measures’ in J Simon and R Sparks (eds.), Handbook of Punishment and Society, Sage, London.
   Google Scholar
• United States Sentencing Commission 2013, United States sentencing commission guidelines manual, Government Printing Office, Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Vanhaelemeesch, D, Beken, TV & Vandevelde, S 2014, ‘Punishment at home: offenders' experiences with electronic monitoring’, European Journal of Criminology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 273–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worrall, A 2006, ‘Community sentences’ in E McLaughlin & J Muncie (eds.), The sage dictionary of criminology, 2nd edn., Sage, London.
   Google Scholar