Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:29 am
Time: 2:29 am
Results for offender monitoring
14 results foundAuthor: Tewey, John F., Chair Title: Final Report to the Governor and the General Assembly. By the Maryland Task Force to Study Criminal Offender Monitoring by Global Positioning Systems Summary: The Task Force was asked to study how the state can utilize global positioning technology to monitor individuals who have committed criminal offenses, how law enforcement can benefit from the linkage to global positioning technology to solve crimes adn streamline workload, the admissibility of evidence issues, as well as other issues that the Task Force considers relevant. Details: Towson, MD: Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 2005 Source: Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114640 Keywords: Global Positioning SystemsOffender Monitoring |
Author: Bonta, James Title: The National Flagging System: Identifying and Responding to High-Risk, Violence Offenders Summary: The National Flagging System (NFS) was established to track high-risk, violent offenders. In general, offenders who are judged to be suitable candidates for a Dangerous Offender (DO) and/or Long Term Offender (LTO) application should they reoffend are placed on the national CPIC system. Thus, if they do reoffend, authorities are quickly alerted to their status and steps taken to consider a DO/LTO application. The present research was aimed at empirically investigating the effectiveness of this policy initiative in identifying and responding to potentially dangerous offenders. Specifically, the profile of 256 flagged male offenders was compared with the profile of 97 known high-risk, violent offenders (i.e., Dangerous Offenders and Detention Failures). In addition, the reconviction rates of the flagged offenders were examined with an emphasis on the effect of the NFS in prompting DO and LTO applications. Results demonstrated that, with a few exceptions, although the flagged offenders showed less serious and persistent criminality characteristics than the known high-risk offenders, both groups were comprised of relatively high-risk cases, compared to general offender populations. Furthermore, the violent/sexual recidivism rates of the flagged offenders were much higher than those reported among typical Canadian male federal offender populations. Even among the violent (including sexual) recidivist offenders, however, the rates of DO and/or LTO applications and successful designations were low. Taken as a whole, despite the fact that the NFS appeared successful in appropriately identifying offenders who pose a risk to the community, this policy initiative's role in facilitating the use of DO and/or LTO provisions was less than expected. Recommendations for the development of guidelines to assist criminal justice professionals in screening, monitoring and processing dangerous offenders are made. Details: Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, 2005. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 205-04: Accessed February 7, 2011 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/2005-04-flg-sysm-eng.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/2005-04-flg-sysm-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 120704 Keywords: Offender MonitoringRecidivismRisk AssessmentSex OffendersViolent Offenders (Canada) |
Author: California. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Inspector General Title: Special Report: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Supervision of John Gardner Summary: On May 14, 2010, John Gardner was sentenced to state prison for life without the possibility of parole for the rapes and murders of 14-year-old Amber Dubois and 17-year-old Chelsea King, and for the assault on 23-year-old Candice Moncayo with the intent to commit rape. Each of these heinous crimes occurred subsequent to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (department) September 2008 discharge of Gardner after he completed a three-year parole term for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 2000. Our review revealed that during Gardner’s parole supervision, the department did not identify his aberrant behavior, including unlawfully entering the grounds of a state prison—a felony—as well as numerous instances of violating the conditions of his parole. Had the department aggressively monitored Gardner’s GPS data during parole, it would have identified his criminal act and parole violations, enabling the department to refer them for appropriate action. Successful prosecution of Gardner’s crime and administrative action in response to his parole violations would have sent Gardner back to prison, making it impossible for him to murder the two young girls and commit the attempted sexual assault. Indeed, the San Diego District Attorney advised us that had the department brought to her attention Gardner’s criminal act of entering the grounds of a state prison, she would have charged Gardner with a third-strike felony, which, if Gardner were convicted, could have resulted in his serving a 25-years-to-life sentence. The department did not identify Gardner’s crime and parole violations because even though it placed a GPS monitoring device on Gardner in September 2007, it did not require parole agents to review the GPS data associated with the device. We identified this weakness in our November 2009 special report titled The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Supervision of Parolee Phillip Garrido. In March 2010, the department issued a GPS monitoring policy that requires parole agents to periodically review GPS data for parolees such as Gardner. Nonetheless, the new passive GPS policy, although improved, remains deficient in meeting the department’s goal of aggressively monitoring all sex offender parolees. Under its provisions, the department remains unlikely to have detected crimes such as Gardner’s felony or many of his parole violations. The department’s current policy still ignores 87 percent of the GPS data collected for parolees such as Gardner. The policy also limits the time that parole agents spend in the field by imposing on parole agents laborious GPS data review techniques. However, by using Criminal Intelligence Specialists and better review techniques, the department could free up parole agents’ time, thereby enhancing public safety through effective parole supervision. These specialists could forward to parole agents any GPS data that requires further review and action. Finally, the department could also be more effective if it used the GPS system’s zonemonitoring capacity to a greater extent and realigned some of the responsibilities for reviewing the alerts that the zones produce. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20John%20Gardner.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BOI/Special%20Report%20on%20CDCRs%20Supervision%20of%20John%20Gardner.pdf Shelf Number: 125320 Keywords: Offender MonitoringOffender SupervisionParolees (California)Violent Offenders |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: Implementation and Outcomes for California’s GPS pilot for High Risk Sex Offender Parolees Summary: In November 2006, California passed Proposition 83 mandating that all sex offenders be monitored by GPS for life. The law was passed without sufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of GPS monitoring on sex offenders, and lacked a clear plan for how these new provisions would be implemented. This study provides a much needed test addressing the effectiveness of GPS monitoring for high risk sex offenders supervised in the community. Using data from a GPS pilot program in San Diego California in 2005, 94 high risk sex offenders monitored by GPS and 91 high risk sex offenders were followed for 18 months. The results showed that there were no significant differences between groups with respect to overall recidivism rates, although GPS offenders were less likely to abscond or fail to register as a sex offender. Additionally, we found that GPS offenders were less likely to be charged of committing a new crime, but more likely to violate a special condition of GPS supervision. Overall, GPS monitoring appeared to prevent parolees only from committing lower level offenses, which calls into question the utility of this particular supervision tool as a deterrent for the sex offender population. Details: Irvine, CA: UC Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, 2010. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed January 29, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/HRSO%20GPS%20Pilot%20Working%20Paper.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/HRSO%20GPS%20Pilot%20Working%20Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 127423 Keywords: GPS (Global Positioning Systems)Offender MonitoringOffender SupervisionParoleesSex Offenders (California) |
Author: Reddy, Vikrant P. Title: Cutting Edge Corrections: Using Technology to Improve Community Supervision in Texas Summary: Over the last three decades, the United States has seen an extraordinary burst of technological innovation. Desktop computing, mobile communication, and mapping are just a few aspects of daily life that are completely different than they were only thirty years ago. For Texas legislators, these innovations have provided exciting new opportunities throughout public policy. In education policy, for example, digital learning could lead to a revolution in student outcomes. Criminal justice policy in Texas is one area that could especially benefit from innovation. In particular, technology has the potential to completely revolutionize community supervision. The fundamental needs of community supervision are technologies for monitoring offenders, for communicating with them, and for analyzing data about them. In all of these areas, technology has grown leaps and bounds. Key Points - Use risk assessments to match probationers and parolees with the most appropriate level of supervision. - Explore use of including voice recognition reporting for the lowest-risk offenders, thus reallocating supervision resources to frequent home visits as well as GPS monitoring for high-risk offenders. - Given that many of those under supervision with technical probation revocations become absconders, consider using enhanced monitoring in order to reduce technical revocations. - While continuing to use ignition interlock devices where appropriate, also consider expanding the use of other alcohol detection devices that are directed at stopping alcohol abuse, not just drunk driving. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-04-PP17-CuttingEdgeCorrections-CEJ-ReddyLevin_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2014-04-PP17-CuttingEdgeCorrections-CEJ-ReddyLevin_0.pdf Shelf Number: 132239 Keywords: Alcohol Interlock DevicesCommunity SupervisionCriminal Justice PolicyOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionProbationersTechnology and Crime |
Author: Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole Title: Monitoring Tennessee's Sex Offenders Using Global Positioning Systems; A Project Evaluation Summary: Although the empirical analysis did not yield definitive support for satellite-based monitoring, BOPP's Pilot project indicates that GPS Provides officers with a unique supervision tool and has potential in aiding officers greatly. Details: Nashville: Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, 2007. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: https://www.pdffiller.com/en/project/44711230.htm?form_id=16749658 Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.pdffiller.com/en/project/44711230.htm?form_id=16749658 Shelf Number: 137150 Keywords: Global Positioning Systems Offender MonitoringOffender Supervision Sex Offenders |
Author: Heaton, Harold I. Title: GPS Monitoring Practices in Community Supervision and the Potential Impact of Advanced Analytics, Version 1.0 Summary: The first electronic monitoring (EM) devices were developed in the 1960s with the intent of providing feedback to young-adult-offender volunteers to facilitate their rehabilitation, but that approach was not widely accepted. Following their reemergence in the 1980s in support of a more punitive model of offender treatment, such devices were used principally for home detention applications. By 1990 radio-frequency (RF)2 technologies were in-use in all 50 states. ( The utility of EM increased considerably in 2000 when the military began permitting civilian Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to attain much greater accuracy , and the offender tracking market expanded quickly. At least 44,000 tracking devices were estimated to be in-use in the United States by 2009 , and the more compact and affordable devices available today can be better tailored to specific needs. Modern features include voice communication, and audible and vibratory alerts to warn participants of schedule violations. These devices also include improved case management software and better mapping technology, with playback capabilities and mobile restriction zones that can be used to keep tracked participants from congregating and separated from former victims. Much of the exigency for enhanced usage of offender monitoring systems has resulted from legislative mandates to track sex offenders, but other applications have emerged such as intensively supervising high-risk parolees, developing confinement alternatives for low-risk criminals to facilitate their re-entry into society and alleviate jail overcrowding, or monitoring pre-trial defendants. "By 2010, 33 states had enacted legislation requiring that this technology be used on sex offenders," although many had not yet implemented those programs. Some states and jurisdictions had also begun using EM to track gang members and domestic abusers, monitor habitual burglars, or alert former victims when offenders were released from custody. Nevertheless, GPS-based systems generate a plethora of data. Without analytical aids to interpret those data, supervising agents can quickly become overwhelmed and unable to take advantage of these tools as they manage their daily caseloads. The temporal sequences of locations gathered by GPS monitoring systems provide unprecedented opportunities to explore patterns of activity through the application of space-time analytics to individual movements and stops. Automated processing and alerting algorithms developed to more fully exploit gathered data could focus an agent's attention on only those events requiring investigation, and provide the basis for conducting social network analyses to gain intelligence on offender habits. While analytical capabilities do not appear to have strongly influenced correctional agency selection of their EM vendors and products to date, tools comprising various combinations of statistical analysis procedures, data and text mining, and predictive modeling can be mission enabling through the discovery of hidden behavioral patterns and the prediction of future outcomes. This paper briefly reviews research on the usage of location-based tracking to motivate an assessment of the potential role of advanced analytics in more strongly leveraging the capabilities of such systems. Relying in part on the results from a recent market survey of commercially-available analytics products suitable for use in correctional applications, it presents several recommendations for deriving actionable information from GPS tracking data as an aid to managing community-released offender populations. Nevertheless, "there has been little rigorous research evaluating the impacts of electronic monitoring," and questions remain about the efficacy of this approach in community supervision. "Policy-relevant research" is needed that is "focused toward understanding the potential for supervision with electronic monitoring to improve long-term outcomes". Details: Laurel, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 2016. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249888.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249888.pdf Shelf Number: 139510 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning SystemsOffender MonitoringOffender Supervision |
Author: Taylor, Steven R. Title: Market Survey of Location-Based Offender Tracking Technologies, Version 1.1 Summary: In September of 2013, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) was selected by the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to establish the National Institute of Justice Technology Research, Test, and Evaluation (NIJ RT&E) Center within the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) System. The purpose of the NIJ RT&E Center is to provide in-depth technical reports and support for NIJ's non-forensic research and development efforts. The Center will inform the criminal justice field concerning offender tracking and monitoring technologies, systems, products, services and related issues in a more innovative, sustainable, efficient, and effective manner. Under NIJ Cooperative Agreement, Award No. 2013-MU-CX-K111, the NIJ RT&E Center was commissioned to conduct a market survey of offender tracking systems (OTS)-hardware and software-to assist public safety and criminal justice practitioners who may be considering the acquisition and implementation of this type of technology in their community. To collect market survey data on OTS products, a request for information (RFI) was created; data was solicited directly from OTS product vendors and it was posted as a Notice in the Federal Register. This paper provides background context for OTS, the NIJ RT&E Center's methodology for developing the market survey, and results from the market survey. This market survey presents a view of the technologies available at the time of publication. When considering an acquisition of OTS equipment, additional information should be sought from the specific vendors of interest. Contact information for the manufacturers is provided in Section 5- Market Survey Data Analysis. Details: Laurel, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 2016. 166p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249889.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249889.pdf Shelf Number: 139511 Keywords: ComputersCorrections TechnologyOffender MonitoringOffender Supervision |
Author: Florida. Legislature. Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability Title: Sex Offender Registration and Monitoring: Statewide Requirements, Local Practices, and Monitoring Procedures Summary: Since OPPAGA's first statutorily required review of sex offender registration in 2005, the number of registered sex offenders in Florida communities has grown by 44% to more than 26,000 offenders. Sheriffs' offices monitor all registered sex offenders and are meeting their statutory requirements for offender registration, address verification, and public notification. Additionally, the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) supervises offenders sentenced to community supervision and those who have been conditionally released from prison. Sex offenders under FDC supervision are supervised at the highest risk level which entails frequent one-on-one contact between a probation officer and offender. Some supervised offenders are placed on electronic monitoring for enhanced monitoring and supervision. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) maintains Florida's sex offender registry. In addition to other information, sex offenders are required to report if they are enrolled or employed at an institution of higher learning and this information is included on FDLE's registry. Our review found this information to be out-of-date for some offenders. Offenders also must attempt to obtain valid state identification cards; however, some are unable to obtain the cards either because they lack the needed documentation or money to pay required fees. Sheriffs' offices have implemented the 30-day transient reporting requirement and report that the more frequent reporting improves accountability. However, the reporting requirement is not tracked consistently throughout the state. Transient offenders continue to be difficult for law enforcement to monitor. Details: Tallahassee: OPPAGA, 2015. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 15-16: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1516rpt.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1516rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 139840 Keywords: Offender MonitoringSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |
Author: Heaton, Harold I. Title: Geospatial Monitoring of Community-Released Offenders: An Analytics Market Survey, Version 2. Summary: With the growing need for deriving actionable information from the burgeoning volume of offender tracking data, it is becoming progressively more essential to leverage analytics to enable Probation and Parole Officers to help manage their caseloads. This report summarizes information gathered from the responses provided by six companies to a Request for Information issued by the National Institute of Justice regarding the analytics features of their commercially available offender-tracking software. It also describes some of the capabilities of a seventh vendor’s product, which were derived by synthesizing information from its Web site and insights provided by correctional departments that use that firm’s services. These businesses include companies that currently provide integrated offender-monitoring services to correctional customers (BI Incorporated, Satellite Tracking of People, Track Group, 3M), an industry leader in big data predictive analytics (SAS Institute, Inc.), and vendors interested in adapting current products to community corrections that have been applied successfully to criminal justice and other applications (FMS, Uncharted Software). As such, it comprises a near-term resource for assisting correctional agencies that may be considering establishing or upgrading an analytics capability in support of their location-based monitoring mission prior to making purchasing decisions. The report is structured topically to summarize and compare the analytics capabilities of these products in each of seven areas, and a separate chapter is devoted to each topic: (1) Demographic information for the company and point-of-contact; (2) Product purpose and installation; (3) Performance characteristics and validation approach; (4) Analyses performed by the product; (5) Data formatting and information exchange; (6) Requirements for host-agency computing systems; and (7) Operator/analyst education and training requirements. Subsequently, an initial view of end-user needs is captured based on information provided by a small sample of state and county-level correctional departments comprising the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Oklahoma, Michigan, and Colorado Departments of Corrections; Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; and Pretrial Services, City and County of Denver. These agencies also offered their current views on the most significant roles that analytics could play in enabling the effectiveness of each organization’s mission. The departments selected and the questions posed regarding the analytics currently in use were not chosen to provide statistically meaningful results, but the knowledge acquired helped guide interpretations of the vendor responses. Although the analytics capabilities of offender monitoring products do not appear to have been a strong motivator for vendor selection to date, analytical tools comprising various combinations of statistical analysis procedures (including crime scene analysis), data and text mining, social network analysis, and predictive modeling can enable the discovery of hidden behavioral patterns and the prediction of future outcomes. As analysis technology progresses and becomes more user friendly, the correctional agencies queried during this study indicated that analytics would become more of a consideration in any replacement systems that are contemplated in the future. Details: Laurel, MD: The National Criminal Justice Technology Research, Test, and Evaluation Center, The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, 2016. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250371.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250371.pdf Shelf Number: 14889 Keywords: Electronic SurveillanceGeospatial TechnologyOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionParole SupervisionParolees |
Author: Great Britain. National Offender Management Service Title: Electronic Monitoring Global Position System: Toolkit for partner agencies Summary: Electronic Monitoring with a Global Positioning System (GPS) tag is a versatile offender management tool offering a choice of capabilities that can support decision makers to manage risk more effectively, and get the right balance between punishment, crime prevention and rehabilitation. It allows for a more bespoke approach to be tailored to an individual. It can be punitive, but also help to support rehabilitative interventions or programmes, improve compliance, help prevent reoffending, and improve enforcement and crime detection as well as providing improved outcomes for victims. A GPS tag can be used with offenders or defendants who may otherwise be in custody, and can mitigate some of the risks these offenders might pose if given an opportunity to remain in the community. A GPS tag can be used by decision makers to monitor a range of conditions or requirements, through providing flexibility to set a range of restrictions including keeping a given distance from a particular place or address or mapping out areas on a map that cannot be entered. Up to 50 different zones can be created if required, and can be can be limited to certain days, dates or times of day. Buffer zones can also be included around restricted zones to alert a subject they are approaching an area they are not to enter. GPS tagging can also be used to monitor a subject's whereabouts and to monitor attendance to support rehabilitate interventions. Through initial feedback from our presentations to stakeholders, 96% of the 260 feedback responses received, agreed that GPS monitoring will be a useful tool for managing offenders in the community. Wearing a GPS tag can potentially support a subject in a number of ways, for example by: - restricting their ability to fall into bad habits, or mix with the wrong crowd; - incentivising them to not reoffend through the knowledge that their movements are being monitored; - eliminating them from a police enquiry by showing they were not present when a crime was committed; - helping them to demonstrate their commitment to change to justice services as well as to family, friends and employees. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, 2017. 35p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591822/EM-GPS-toolkit-V2.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591822/EM-GPS-toolkit-V2.pdf Shelf Number: 146959 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringElectronic TaggingGlobal Positioning SystemsOffender MonitoringOffender Supervision |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Title: Offender-monitoring tags Summary: Electronic monitoring of prisoners-known informally as 'tagging'-plays an important role in supporting prisoner rehabilitation in the community. In 2011 the Ministry of Justice launched a programme to develop a new, world-leading tag that would incorporate GPS technology. However, a National Audit Office report found that developing the tags has been beset with problems and cost increases as a result of high-risk approach and weak governance. The Ministry planned to procure parts of the service from four providers, with a fifth provider integrating all the parts but contracts for procurement were signed two years later than planned. G4S has now been appointed to complete the work by mid-2019, a total delay of five years. The programme intended to save between $9 million and $30 million, but instead the Ministry has spent an additional $60 million. The tagging service is expected to cost L470 million between 2017 and 2025. The Committee will ask the Ministry of Justice about its attitude to risk, why it contracted the project in the manner they did and why that went wrong, and what it is doing to assure the success of the tagging programme in the years ahead. Details: London: House of Commons, 2018. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 458:Fifteenth report of Session 2017-19: Accessed February 12, 2018 at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/458/458.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/458/458.pdf Shelf Number: 149093 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionTagging |
Author: Canada. Public Safety Canada Title: 2016-2017 Evaluation of the National Flagging System Program: Final Report Summary: The Program The National Flagging System was established in 1995 to ensure that provincial/territorial Crown prosecutors were aware of the potential information held in other provinces/territories regarding an offender's high and continuing risk of future violent conduct. The National Flagging System is both a database and a network of provincial/territorial officials, referred to as National Flagging System Coordinators, who are responsible for identifying high-risk offenders for flagging purposes. The National Flagging System operates through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), which is housed within the RCMP. CPIC facilitates the sharing of person records to support this Program. When a flagged offender re-offends anywhere in Canada, those NFS Coordinators that have access to CPIC messaging functionality are notified through CPIC. NFS coordinators must apply and be granted CPIC system access before sharing the aforementioned information. The NFS is a $500,000/year grant program for the provinces with base funding of $25,000 per year per province and the remainder divided among the provinces on a population basis. Funding is used for salaries, equipment for electronic storage and file distribution, communication and travel for training and conferences that enhance expertise in the area of high-risk offenders. The territories, while part of the network, are not eligible for funding because the administration of justice is the responsibility of the Public Prosecution Service, a federal body that cannot be funded under the grant program. Why it is important High-risk offenders are a mobile population. Many spend time in the federal penitentiary system and may be moved around the country. After their incarceration, there is high incentive for them to relocate as they are often known in their community. There is a need for coordination among provinces and territories in the management of high-risk offenders. Inter-jurisdictional cooperation is essential in order to ensure that prosecutors have the information necessary to treat them appropriately if they re-offend anywhere in Canada. What we examined The evaluation assessed the relevance and performance of the NFS Program over the period 2012-13 to 2016-17. It examined: 1) continued need, 2) alignment with federal government priorities, 3) alignment with federal roles and responsibilities, 4) progress towards achievement of intended outcomes, and 5) efficiency and economy. What we found Relevance There is a continued need for the NFS and inter-jurisdictional cooperation so that prosecutors have information to ensure flagged offenders are treated appropriately if they re-offend anywhere in Canada. Workload is increasing because of the requirement to maintain files on high-risk offenders who tend to have long criminal careers. Given the mobility of long-term offenders, inter-provincial co-operation and sharing of information are crucial. Without federal funding some provinces are likely to become inactive leading to less communication, information sharing and cooperation among provinces. By identifying and tracking high-risk offenders and providing information on flagged offenders should they reoffend anywhere in Canada, the Program is aligned with the Government of Canada's and Public Safety's objective of a Safe and Secure Canada. The administration of justice is an area of shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces/territories. The Program is consistent with federal roles and responsibilities to provide national leadership to foster cooperation and coordination among the provinces/ territories in the management of high risk offenders. Cost sharing reflects the need for information sharing with respect to this population as their mobility is increased when transferred within the federal penitentiary system. The NFS is a unique network with no equivalent counterparts. It has synergies with provincial flagging systems and with the new High Risk Child Sex Offender database for which NFS Coordinators have recently agreed to act as a conduit between the RCMP and organizations in the provinces/territories conducting public notifications. Performance - Effectiveness The evidence from interviews as well as document and literature reviews suggests that the Program is contributing to the outcomes identified in its logic model. The Program has helped provinces maintain or increase their capacity to identify and track high- risk offenders by providing funding for resources, training and equipment and by encouraging the development of inter-and intra-provincial/territorial networks. Although the data suggests that offenders who are higher risk than the general offender population are being identified, referred, flagged and tracked, it appears that cases may be missed and flagging criteria may be inconsistent across provinces. Work underway in certain provinces suggests that twice as many offenders should be flagged. A 2015 research study conducted in collaboration with PS points to inconsistency in flagging noting that some provinces are flagging disproportionally more offenders even though there were no differences in risk scores or recidivism rates between provinces.Footnote 1 The study also concluded that "the NFS appeared to function as an appropriate mechanism for tracking offenders at increased risk for violent or sexual recidivism" and identifies the right risk offenders.Footnote 2 Interviewees suggested that the program could be improved by reviewing flagging guidelines and practices. There are no standards for the timeliness of the transfer of information between provinces/territories; however, most interviewees felt it had improved and that files were transferred to meet court deadlines. Increased knowledge about the NFS and flagged offenders among Crown prosecutors and other justice partners is attributed to education and training, good communications between Coordinators and prosecutors and the knowledge and accessibility of Coordinators and staff to those with questions or seeking information. NFS information is seen to affect outcomes because it is readily and nationally available, extensive, complete and of high quality. It would be difficult for a Crown prosecutor to identify and obtain information of this caliber in a timely manner through his/her own efforts. NFS information is used to make decisions on charges, prosecution strategy, bail submissions, plea negotiations and sentencing recommendations as well as to alert prosecutors to the need to consider making an application for Dangerous Offender or Long Term Offender designations and as input into the programming an inmate receives from the Correctional Service of Canada. The NFS facilitates Dangerous Offender and Long Term Offender applications by providing complete criminal histories to support these applications, documenting intensive court processes and significantly reducing resource demands on Crown prosecutors that may in the past have limited the number of applications. A 2015 PS research study found that 14% of flagged offenders included in the study were subsequently designated compared to 1% of Canadian violent recidivists.Footnote 3 Having dedicated NFS staff, partly funded by federal grants, has facilitated the achievement of outcomes and the development of a network and strong relationships that are fostered through Coordinators' meetings. Two factors have been identified by some of the interviewees to have hindered the achievement of the Program's outcomes: information sharing challenges with the Correctional Service of Canada and the backlog faced by the RCMP in entering the criminal records of offenders in the CPIC. However, the RCMP indicated that CPIC does not have a backlog of any information. PS research studies published in 2005 and 2015 have provided confidence that the right people are being flagged and have helped Coordinators understand the impact of the Program. However, no additional research is currently planned. A number of potential improvements related to the Program have been suggested including reviewing flagging guidelines and criteria to improve inter-provincial consistency, implementing automatic notification of flagging candidates from provincial databases to minimize missed cases, preparing case summaries to improve the usefulness of flagging files to Crown prosecutors, increasing the use of electronic files, developing a web-based national database to store flagged offender files, more timely and consistent access to the Correctional Service of Canada data, more training for prosecutors on the Dangerous Offender and Long Term Offender application process and more systematic communication within the network to share information on issues and challenges related to high-risk offenders. Performance - Efficiency and Economy As recommended by the previous evaluation, a Performance Measurement Strategy was completed in 2014 and implemented in 2015. At 8%, the administration ratio for the program is in line with that of other grant programs and is indicative of an efficient administrative process. It is noted that the ratio has increased from 4.5% at the time of the last evaluation. The evaluation has identified a number of opportunities for improvement. To that end, the following recommendations are being made for consideration. Recommendations Internal Audit and Evaluation Directorate recommends that the ADM of CSCCB: In collaboration with the provinces, to develop more structured flagging criteria and guidelines to improve consistency in the application of these criteria by NFS coordinators and across jurisdictions; To work with NFS coordinators and Correctional Service Canada (CSC) to improve consistency, timeliness and ease of access to CSC information by NFS coordinators and across jurisdictions. Management Response and Action Plan Management accepts all recommendations and will implement an action plan Details: Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2017. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/vltn-ntnl-flggng/vltn-ntnl-flggng-en.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/vltn-ntnl-flggng/vltn-ntnl-flggng-en.pdf Shelf Number: 149949 Keywords: Offender MonitoringRecidivismRisk AssessmentSex OffendersViolent Offenders (Canada) |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special Review: Assessment of Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders on Parole and the Impact of Residency Restrictions Summary: Proposition 83 ("Jessica's Law"), passed by California voters in 2006, requires that all convicted sex offenders paroled from prison and required by law to register with local law enforcement shall be subjected to monitoring by global positioning technology (GPS) and to restrictions on where they may reside. The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic monitoring of sex offender parolees and the impact of residency restrictions on sex offender parolees at the request of the Senate Rules Committee. The review found: - The annual costs of GPS tracking has decreased over the past five fiscal years. In fiscal year 2009-10, the department spent $12.4 million to monitor sex offender parolees with GPS. By fiscal year 2013-14, these costs were $7.9 million. - There exists little objective evidence to determine to what extent, if any, GPS tracking is a crime deterrent, although a small 2012 study funded by the National Institute of Justice of 516 high-risk sex offenders found that offenders who were not subjected to GPS monitoring had nearly three times more sex-related parole violations than those who were monitored by GPS technology. Despite the rarity of studies defending GPS as a crime deterrent, the OIG's interviews with parole agents and local law enforcement personnel found that they value GPS technology as a tool for its ability to locate parolees, track their movements, and provide valuable information in solving crimes. - GPS technology adds to parole agents' workloads in certain aspects, while affording time-savings in others. For example, agents spend approximately two hours reviewing and analyzing parolees' tracks for a single-day period. On the other hand, GPS facilitates mandatory face-to-face contacts between parole agents and parolees by allowing the agent to locate parolees more quickly than might be the case in locating a non-GPS parolee. - Over 60 percent of parole agents who supervise sex-offender parolees have caseloads exceeding established departmental ratios (parolee-to-agent) when taking into consideration the mix of high-risk vs low-risk parolees per caseload. In addition, the department has a disparity of caseloads across its parole units, with 14 of the 37 parole units that supervise sex offenders reporting caseload sizes exceeding the department's established ratios for all agents assigned to those units. Simultaneously, five other parole units report caseload sizes below the department's established ratios for all of their parole agents. - Field agents whom the OIG interviewed consistently expressed their concerns that the department-issued laptops used for tracking parolee movements in the field should be replaced by smaller hand-held devices such as smart phones, stating that the laptops were not only cumbersome, but may inhibit officer safety in certain situations. Many agents the OIG encountered were using their personal smart phones for GPS mapping and tracking in the field. - The residency restrictions imposed by Jessica's Law, which prohibit paroled sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children congregate, contribute to homelessness among paroled sex offenders. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, there were only 88 sex offenders on parole statewide who were registered as transient when Proposition 83 was passed in November 2006. As of June 2014, there were 1,556 sex offender parolees identified as transient by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. While this represents 3.38 percent of all parolees, the incidence of homelessness is 19.95 percent (approximately one in five) among the subset of parolees who are sex offenders. - Transient sex offender parolees are more "labor intensive" than are parolees who have a permanent residence. The OIG interviewed parole administrators in 12 parole districts, who said that because transient sex offenders are moving frequently, monitoring their movement is time consuming. Transient sex offenders must register with local law enforcement monthly (as opposed to yearly for those with permanent residences), thus requiring more frequent registration compliance tracking by parole agents. Adding further to the workload associated with monitoring transients, agents are required to conduct weekly face-to-face contacts with them. - Transient sex offender parolees are more likely to violate the terms of their parole than those who have a permanent residence. Transient sex offenders have committed a majority of parole violations (which include technical violations as well as new crimes) among parolee sex offenders over a recent five-year period. Less than 1 percent of those violations were for sex-related crimes. In the most recently completed fiscal year (2013-14), over 76 percent of the sex offender parolees whom the department charged with violating their parole terms were transient. - While Jessica's Law leaves open the option for local governments to impose their own restrictions on paroled sex offenders, parolees are finding relief from residency restrictions through the courts. Several counties have issued stays suspending the blanket enforcement of residency restrictions to those who petition the local court, and San Diego County has issued a stay suspending the blanket enforcement of residency restrictions on sex offenders pending the outcome of the California Supreme Court's decision of the matter In re Taylor (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 210, review granted January 3, 2013, S206143. - The California Sex Offender Management Board's findings and recommendations remain largely unaddressed. While some of the board's recommendations have been implemented, most recently with CDCR's implementation of the sex offender containment model, major recommendations, such as tiering registration requirements, reevaluating residency restrictions, and applying best practices for GPS monitoring, have not. Details: Sacramento: Author, 2014. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 15, 2019 at: https://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/OIG_Special_Review_Electronic_Monitoring_of_Sex_Offenders_on_Parole_and_Impact_of_Residency_Restrictions_November_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/OIG_Special_Review_Electronic_Monitoring_of_Sex_Offenders_on_Parole_and_Impact_of_Residency_Restrictions_November_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 155844 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeElectronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning Technology (GPS)Offender MonitoringParoleesProposition 83Residency RestrictionsSex Offender RegistrationSex Offenders |