Summing It Up
Shortly after the release of our final RFID evaluation report, I found myself in the conference room of a corrections agency in a nearby jurisdiction. The director objected to our finding that the technology had no impact when implemented at its most basic capacity, as was the case at NEPRC, and he launched into a tirade about our so-called “substandard” evaluation. I learned later that his agency had just committed considerable resources to implementing its own RFID system, and he felt that our evaluation threatened the wisdom of that investment.
He is not alone. Far too often, we draw erroneous conclusions about the effectiveness of criminal justice technologies based on evaluations that yield no impact. But in this case — and arguably in many like it — the failure is not in the technology itself but in the deployment. As Thomas Edison once famously observed, “Just because something doesn’t do what you planned it to do doesn’t mean it’s useless.”
When deploying technology, corrections agencies should gather staff input, train and engage all users, and routinely monitor and document usage. Evaluation partners can help collect data and provide that all-important feedback loop, which can lead to midcourse corrections aimed at enhancing implementation fidelity. Following this approach will prevent false assumptions and increase the odds that the technology will yield its intended impact.
About the Author
Nancy La Vigne is the director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute.
For More Information
Read the final RFID evaluation report, Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assaults in a Correctional Setting, at NIJ.gov, keyword: 229196.
This article discusses the following grant:
• “Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Devices to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assaults in Correctional Settings,” grant number 2007-RP-BX-0001.
Notes
1. Nancy G. La Vigne, Robin Halberstadt, and Barbara Parthasarathy, “Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assaults in a Correctional Setting,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2007-RP-BX-0001, December 2009, NCJ 229196, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229196.pdf.
2. National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Technology Primer: Radio Frequency Identification (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2005).
3. Bob Violino, “The History of RFID Technology,” RFID Journal (January 16, 2005), http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/ view?1338.
NIJ Journal / Issue No. 278 May 2017 5
National Institute of Justice | www.NIJ.gov
4. Nancy G. La Vigne, “Evaluability Assessment of Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) Use in Correctional Settings,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, 2006, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/radio-frequency- identification.pdf.
5. Ibid.; Laura J. Hickman, Lois M. Davis, Edward Wells, and Mel Eisman, “Tracking Inmates and Locating Staff with Active Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID): Early Lessons Learned in One U.S. Correctional Facility,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2005-IJ-CX-K062, June 2010, NCJ 230781, https://www. ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/230781.pdf.
6. La Vigne, “Evaluability Assessment of Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) Use in Correctional Settings.”
7. Robin L. Halberstadt and Nancy G. La Vigne, “Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assaults in a Correctional Setting,” The Prison Journal 91 (2011): 227-249.
Image source: ©JacobH, iStock.com.
NCJ 250343
Cite this article as: Nancy La Vigne, “Harnessing the Power of Technology in Institutional Corrections,” NIJ Journal 278, November 2016, https://nij.gov/ journals/278/Pages/harnessing-power-of-technology- in-institutional-corrections.aspx.