Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assault and Related Acts of Violence in a Women's Prison

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center 2100 M Street, NW „ Washington, DC 20037 „ www.urban.org NLavigne@urban.org „ P: (202) 261-5763 „ F: (202 296-2252 Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assault and Related Acts of Violence in a Women’s Prison Nancy La Vigne NLAVIGNE@URBAN.ORG „ P: (202) 261-5763 „ F: (202) 296-2252 Robin Halberstadt RHALBERSTADT@URBAN.ORG „ P: (202) 261-5758 „ F: (202) 296-2252 Barbara Parthasarathy BPARTHASARATHY@URBAN.ORG „ P: (202) 261-5542 „ F: (202) 296-2252 This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-RP-BX-0001 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Urban Institute. Final report submitted on October 16th, 2009. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center 2100 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037 www.urban.org © 2009 Urban Institute This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-RP-BX-0001 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that examines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the support of members of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. We are particularly thankful to Mr. Lee Norton, who served as our main point of contact and provider of administrative data, and the staff and inmates of the Northeast Pre-Release Center, who were forthcoming with information in support of this evaluation. On the technology side, we appreciate the cooperation provided by Mr. Ray Vintilla and Mr. Andrew Cohen of Elmotech, as well as Mr. Chris Rogers of Midwest Monitoring Systems. Ms. Molly Yeager provided critical services in the form of timely and accurate collection of on-site administrative data. We would also like to thank our NIJ peer reviewers, as well as Janine Zweig and Samantha Hetrick from the Urban Institute, for their careful review of this report. Abstract This evaluation examines the implementation, use, and impact on inmate behavior of radio frequency identification device (RFID) technology at the Northeast Pre-Release Center (NEPRC) in Cleveland, Ohio. In correctional facilities, RFID transmitter chips can communicate the locations and movements of inmates within prison facilities to staff. The technology can be programmed to issue alerts when inmates are out of place, in prohibited locations, or in proximity to individuals with whom they have conflict. In addition, RFID historical records can be used to investigate allegations of inmate misconduct. Given these capabilities, RFID technology may increase the ability of prison staff to identify inmate misconduct both in real time and after an incident occurs. This enhanced detection capability may in turn increase the risk of detection for inmates and deter them from engaging in prohibited behaviors such as sexual assault, consensual sex, and fighting. Accordingly, this evaluation investigated whether the use of RFID technology deterred inmates from engaging in sexual assault, violence, and other prohibited behaviors. The evaluation design for this study consisted of three data collection and analysis strategies: (1) semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with a random sample of correctional staff to understand how the RFID system was implemented and used as well as how it affected prison management; (2) structured, one-on-one interviews with a sample of randomly selected inmates to elicit opinions about the technology and its impact on prohibited acts and perceptions of safety; and (3) analysis of infraction data for NEPRC, a women’s prison that houses approximately 580 low- and medium-security inmates, and Franklin Pre-Release Center (FPRC), an Ohio women’s prison with a similar population size and demographic makeup as NEPRC that had not implemented RFID technology. Interviews with sexual assault investigators on their use of the technology were also conducted. Both comparisons of means between pre- and post-RFID implementation inmate infractions and ARIMA modeling were used to determine if RFID technology affected inmates’ propensities to commit sexual assault, related acts of violence, and other acts of misconduct. Results from the process evaluation component of this study revealed two serious problems with RFID implementation and use at NEPRC. First, the technology was not fully implemented due to limited resources, r