Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:07 pm
Time: 9:07 pm
Results for offender monitoring (u.s.)
1 results foundAuthor: Erez, Edna Title: GPS Monitoring Technologies and Domestic Violence: An Evaluation Study Summary: This study examines the implementation of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring technology in enforcing court mandated “no contact” orders in domestic violence (DV) cases, particularly those involving intimate partner violence (IPV). The research also addresses the effectiveness of GPS as a form of pretrial supervision, as compared to other conditions in which defendants are placed. The project has three components: First, a national web-based survey of agencies providing pretrial supervision reported on patterns of GPS usage, as well as the advantages, drawbacks, and costs associated with using GPS for DV cases. The results indicate a gradual increase in agencies’ use of GPS technology for DV cases since 1996, primarily to enhance victim safety and defendant supervision. Second, a quasi-experimental design study of three sites from across the U.S. – referred to as “Midwest,” “West,” and “South” – examined the impact of GPS technology on DV defendants’ program violations and re-arrests during the pretrial period (referred to as the “short term”), and on re-arrests during a one-year follow-up period after case disposition (referred to as the “long term”). The results indicate that GPS has an impact on the behavior of program enrollees over both short and long terms. Examination of the short-term impact of GPS enrollment shows it is associated with practically no contact attempts. Furthermore, defendants enrolled in GPS monitoring have fewer program violations compared to those placed in traditional electronic monitoring (EM) that utilizes radio frequency (RF) technology (i.e., remotely monitored and under house arrest, but without tracking). GPS tracking seems to increase defendants’ compliance with program rules compared to those who are monitored but not tracked. Defendants enrolled in the Midwest GPS program had a lower probability of being rearrested for a DV offense during the one-year follow-up period, as compared to defendants who had been in a non-GPS condition (e.g., in jail, in an RF program, or released on bond without supervision). In the West site, those placed on GPS had a lower likelihood of arrest for any criminal violation within the one-year follow-up period. In the South site, no impact deriving from participation in GPS was observed. The heterogeneity of the defendants who are placed on GPS at this site, and the different method for generating the South sample of DV defendants, may account for the absence of GPS impact on arrest in the long term. An examination of the relationship between GPS and legal outcomes across the three sites revealed similar conviction rates for defendants on GPS and those who remained in jail during the pretrial period. Further, a comparison of conviction rates for GPS and RF defendants at the Midwest site found a significant difference – with GPS defendants being likelier to be convicted as compared to RF defendants; conviction rates in the Midwest and South sites were also higher for GPS defendants compared to defendants released on bond without supervision, suggesting that defendants’ participation in GPS increases the likelihood of conviction. These findings may be related to the fact that GPS provides victims with relief from contact attempts, empowering them to participate in the state’s case against the defendant. The third component of the study is a qualitative investigation conducted at six sites, entailing in-depth individual and group interviews with stakeholders in domestic violence cases – victims, defendants and criminal justice personnel. The interviews identified a variety of approaches to organizing GPS programs, with associated benefits and liabilities. Victims largely felt that having defendants on GPS during the pretrial period provided relief from the kind of abuse suffered prior to GPS, although they noted problems and concerns with how agencies and courts apply GPS technology. Interviews with defendants supported quantitative findings about the impact of GPS on defendants’ short- and long-term behavior, and found both burdens and occasional benefits associated with participation. Benefits of GPS enrollment for defendants included protecting them from false accusations, providing added structure to their lives, and enabling them to envision futures for themselves without the victim. Burdens pertained to living with restrictions and becoming transparent, managing issues related to stigma and disclosure of one’s status as a DV defendant tethered to GPS, and handling the practical issues that emerge with the technology and equipment. Policy implications highlight the importance of having a logical connection between defendant attributes and program details, avoiding enrollment in cases where the GPS has minimal or no value and is imposed for reasons other than protecting victims or enforcing restraining orders, the need for justice professionals to cultivate relationships with victims whose abusers are on GPS, and the importance of maintaining an appropriate balance between victim safety and due process for the defendant. Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2012. 245p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238910.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238910.pdf Shelf Number: 128015 Keywords: Domestic Violence OffendersElectronic MonitoringFamily ViolenceGlobal Positioning System (GPS)Intimate Partner ViolenceOffender Monitoring (U.S.)Pretrial Supervision |