The authors use the term, computer-assisted monitoring of offenders (CAMO), because they feel it more accurately describes the concept of electronic monitoring. They note that CAMO evaluation researchers generally focus on two sets of criteria for assessing the success or failure of electronic monitoring. The first involves economic or cost measures, while the second involves recidivism measures. Two cost-effectiveness issues are generally reported in CAMO research. The first concerns time savings which are achieved by reducing the work time spent by probation and parole officers in caseload supervision. The second pertains to cost savings derived primarily from reducing the number of offenders sentenced to incarceration. Research on the time savings issue supports the idea that electronic monitoring programs free probation and parole officers from the intensive supervision component of their caseloads. Cost savings accrue from the reduction of prisoners and jails and from a reduction in prison overcrowding. Recidivism findings do not provide conclusive evidence of the success or failure of electronic monitoring. A study of electronic monitoring in Baton Rouge, Louisiana is reported that included a population of probationers placed on electronic monitoring and a control group of probationers drawn from the population of offenders who were placed on probation only during the same period. Four offense categories were used to measure differences in recidivism between the two groups (technical violations of probation, traffic convictions, criminal arrests, and driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrests). For the most part, electronically-monitored offenders did not do as well while on probation as the control group for technical violations and traffic convictions. There was no statistical difference, however, between the two groups for criminal and DWI offenses. 9 references, 2 endnotes, and 1 table