BARRE, VT - Dennis Henry says he'd rather wear a bulky ankle bracelet than go back to jail -- even if the device sets off a false alarm when he strays too far toward his property line while cutting his grass.

The Williamstown man last month became one of the first group of Vermont offenders to try out new types of electronic monitoring gear rather than go back to prison for violating release conditions.

Corrections officials and lawmakers hope the devices will offer an alternative to prison and reduce overcrowding that has reached record levels this year.

"We have to do something when we're increasing the number of sex offenders that are going to be locked up," said Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, vice chairman of the Legislature's Corrections Oversight Committee. Lawmakers this year toughened sentences for some sex offenders.

Another advantage is cost: The state spends $40 to $50 a day to keep an offender locked up; the electronic monitoring devices cost $5 to $10 a day to operate.

"It's financially advantageous, plus the people are out there with their families and continue to be employed," said Corrections Commissioner Robert Hofmann.

The devices won't make the department's budget and overcrowding problems go away, officials said.

"This isn't a silver bullet, but it is just another part of a bag of strategies and tools," said Steve Lickwar, assistant director of field supervision for the Corrections Department.

The state is trying out several different types of the monitoring devices. The one Henry had is tied to a telephone line and reports to corrections officials how far the offender travels from its transmitter. It also can track the offender through a global positioning system.

The system also tells whether the person wearing the bracelet has been drinking by measuring alcohol in his or her sweat. A telephone monitor calls the person at random times five times a day, and the person is required to call back within two minutes.

So far, the state has used the monitor just with nonviolent offenders who were on furlough or supervised release and otherwise would have returned to prison for violating release conditions. In the first two months, 15 offenders successfully completed their monitoring period, while five failed and were returned to prison.