Evidence-Based
Electronic Monitoring:
The Legal Landscape
and (Inconsistent)
Evidence
Brian K. Payne, Georgia State University
Deeanna Button, University of Delaware
Matthew DeMichele, American Probation &
Parole Association
Objectives
1.Discuss how laws effecting the use of electronic
monitoring tools have shifted, especially to
incorporate location tracking with GPS.
2.Discuss how these legislative changes have
implications for the way community corrections
officers supervise offenders.
3.Provide information about the effectiveness of
electronic monitoring tools.
Evidence-Based Electronic
Monitoring of Sex Offenders
[cont.]
 Technology
 Rapidly evolving
 Legislation = active GPS
 Technology is one more tool
 Combined with others
 Means to end = structured containment
 Not the end
 Provides WINDOW into offender’s life
Evidence-Based Electronic
Monitoring of Sex Offenders
[cont.]
 Many electronic tools to supervise offenders
 Technology






Radio frequency
Location tracking
Computer monitoring and forensics
Crime and GPS data integration
Polygraph
Others
Radio Frequency: Martha
Stewart’s Model
Radio Frequency
Radio Frequency




[cont.]
Home arrest
Curfew monitoring
Judge Love (Albuquerque, NM)
1983
 By 1990 in 50 states
 Several countries
 Repairs
 False positives of violations
Radio Frequency
[cont.]
 Drive-by units
 Random calling




Identity verification
Slow scan photos
Electronic voice analysis
Remote alcohol detection (late 1980s)
Location Tracking
Location Tracking
 Late 1990s
 Cellular
Technology
 24 Satellites
 U.S. Department
of Defense
[cont.]
Location Tracking
 Active and Passive
 Exclusion Zones
 Workload Differences
 Liability
 Legislation
[cont.]
Benefits of Using GPS




Flexibility
Reintegration
Control
Retribution
Benefits of Using GPS
 Flexible
 Can be applied to different types of
offenders
 Sex offenders
 Burglars
 Domestic violence offenders
 Gang members
Benefits of Using GPS
 Reintegration
 Offenders are able to live at home
 Maintain employment
 Avoid criminogenic conditions related to
incarceration
Benefits of Using GPS
 Control
 Capacity to effectively control offenders via:
 Inclusion and exclusion zones
 Curfews
 Data points show offender’s daily movements
 Is he/she spending time at McDonald’s (playground)?
 Or why is he/she spending so much time at the Mall
(kid’s stores)?
Benefits of Using GPS
Retribution
 Deprivation of autonomy
 Deprivation of goods and
services
 Deprivation of liberty
 Deprivation of intimate
relations
 Monetary costs
 Family effects
 Watching others
 Bracelet effects
Cost of Using GPS
 Seemingly cost effective
 GPS: $10 per day
 Incarceration: $60 per day
 Civil confinement: $110,000 per year
Cost of Using GPS
 Incarcerated
populations remain
the same
 Community
corrections
populations
continues to grow
 GPS is an additional
cost
Cost of Using GPS
 Estimated GPS cost
 $9,000 a year per sex offender
 Actual cost:
 Tennessee: $2.5 million a year for 650
offenders
 Iowa: $2.4 million a year for 500 offenders
 Fees pay for technology
 Fees do NOT pay for the workload
Legislation
 Political Fears
 Stems from media
driven frenzy
 Agenda driven
politicians
 Frightened and
concerned citizens
 Unanticipated Effects
 Fails to consider
legislation’s impact on
criminal justice
administrators and
practitioners
Legislation for Effective
Community Corrections Policy
 47 states have EM legislation
 14 states have legislation describing
GPS for sex offenders
 7 states use either active or passive
systems
 8 states require the use of active
electronic monitoring
Legislation for Effective
Community Corrections Policy
 18 states clearly define use of EM
 29 states require offenders to pay at least
a portion of EM fees
 17 states regulate the amount of time
offenders spend on EM
 11 of these states stipulate time limits for
general EM devices
 7 of these states place specific time limits for
GPS supervision
Legislation for Effective
Community Corrections
 27 states have specific policies for
monitoring sex offenders
 19 states require EM for sex offenders
 Only three states mention EM use for
domestic violence offenders
 Four states use EM for convicted drug
and alcohol offenders
Legislative Typologies




General vs. Specific
Sentence Integration
Risk Assessment
Punitive




Evaluation
Offender Fees
Child Abuse
Repeat Offenders
General vs. Specific
Policies
 General Policies
 Lack precise definition of EM expectations
 Neglect to mention
 Type of offender
 Length of time to be monitored
 Mandatory technological capabilities
General vs. Specific
Policies
 General Policies (examples)
 Pennsylvania: Individuals eligible for house
arrest involving EM shall be determined by
administrative staff
 Utah: In determining its sentence the
court…may require the defendant to
participate in an EM program
General vs. Specific
Policies
 Specific Policies
 More specific in policy stipulations
 More likely to mention
 Type of offender
 Length of time to be monitored
 Mandatory technological capabilities
General vs. Specific
Policies
 Specific Policies
 Florida: Requires that offenders who are designated
sexual predators must upon release and for the rest
of their life be subject to GPS
 Indiana: Requires a sexually violent predator be
placed on lifetime parole to be monitored via GPS
device. Amends definition of “monitoring devices” to
include those that provide 24 hour information on an
offender’s location, and capable of notifying
appropriate officials of offender’s violation
Sentence Integration
 Integrate EM into the offender’s sentence
 Kansas, Louisiana, and Maine: Mandatory
prison sentences in addition to required
lifetime electronic monitoring
 Michigan: Requires a term of 25 years
without possibility of parole [and] requires
lifetime electronic monitoring…”
Risk Assessment
 Risk assessments to determine the
probability of offender recidivism
 Provisions of sexually dangerous:
 Seriousness of the assault
 Age of the victim
 Number of prior offenses
Risk Assessment
 Review boards used to assess sexual
dangerousness of offender
 Louisiana, New Mexico, and Connecticut
 Georgia: requires GPS monitoring if Sexual
Offender Registration Review Board deems
and offender “sexually dangerous”
Risk Assessment
 EM utilized according to risk
 Categorized to one of three levels
 Risk of repeat offense
 Risk to public safety
 Violent predator status
 Montana: GPS monitoring must be imposed upon “level 3
sex offenders”
 Illinois: requires those convicted of an offense that would
qualify the accused as a sexual predator be subject to EM
Punitive Nature of Policies
 Used as Additional
form of long term
punishment
 Florida:
 Sexual offenders
 Upon release and for
the rest of their life
 Subjected to GPS
“active electronic
monitoring”
 South Carolina:
 Electronic
geographical location
monitoring
 Offenders who violate
terms of community
supervision
 Used as additional
punitive sanction
Evaluation of Policies
 Data collection required to evaluate sex
offender electronic monitoring legislation
 Illinois and Kansas: statistical information on
numbers of offenders required to register
who are subject to electronic monitoring
 Indiana: mandates reports on cost and
implementation issues of GPS monitoring,
including feasibility of recovering expense of
GPS from offenders
Reliance on Offender Fees
 Offenders must pay
for monitoring
 Or a portion of fees
 Georgia, Michigan,
Oklahoma,
Tennessee…
 Exceptions
mentioned
 Louisiana and Alaska
 Unanticipated
Consequences
 Realistic
 Workload
Child Abusers
 Victim age
 Specific vs. General
 “crimes against children under age 14”
 “particularly those against children”
 Mandatory terms
 Mandatory sentence length
 Mandatory conditions
Child Abusers
 Georgia:
 Minimum sentence 25-50 years or life
 Particularly for forcible crimes against children under age
14
 Florida:
 sex crimes
 particularly those against children
 upon release and for the rest of their life be subject to GPS
 Wisconsin:
 lifetime GPS tracking
 probation for committing a serious child sex offense
Repeat Offenders
 Severe sentences for repeat offenders
 Kansas
 First-time offenders: minimum 25 year sentence without
parole
 Second-time offenders: minimum 40 year sentence without
parole
 Third-time offenders: life without parole
 Michigan and Iowa
 Second-time offenders: life without parole
 South Carolina
 Second-time offenders: death penalty for sex crimes
against a child less than 11 years of age
Legislation and Electronic
Monitoring
 The use of GPS to monitor sex offenders
represents perhaps the most
comprehensive form of legislation that
has been passed
Legislation and EM:
Unanticipated Consequences
 EM of sex offenders
is recent legislative
concern
 Policymaking
community blurring
issues of electronic
monitoring and sex
offenders
 The use of these
policies to control
sex offenders
continues to increase
despite the lack of
empirical research
supporting such
growth
 One more Tool (not
the only tool)
Legislation and Electronic
Monitoring
 Electronic monitoring of sex offenders
result of:
 Growing political and public concern about
sex offenders
 Technological shifts
 Evolving template of state sex offender laws
Expectations of
Community Corrections
 Rehabilitate and punish
offenders
 Free up jail and prison
space
 Reduce Cost
 Ensure offender
compliance through
 Treatment
 Enforcement
 Surveillance
 Expectations are difficult
to fulfill
 EM is not a program, but
a tool
 EM contributes to
information gathering
 Information about the
offender
 EM does not reduce the
human component
Where’s the Evidence?
 Does electronic monitoring work?
 Does electronic monitoring reduce recidivism?
 Does electronic monitoring improve case
management?
 How do we know?
Where’s the Evidence?
[cont.]
 Little research - weak methodologies
 Mixed results
 Better for some populations
 Differences across types of offenders
 What is purpose of electronic
monitoring?
 Punishment?
 Accountability?
 Behavior change?
Where’s the Evidence?
[cont.]
 Not a FIX
 Electronic Monitoring does not replace OFFICER
 ONE Tool
 Incorporated with other TOOLS
 Create highly structured CONTAINMENT
Evidence
[cont.]
 Finn and Muirhead Steves (2002)
 High-risk male parolees
 Electronic monitoring showed no impact
after four years
 Sex offenders on electronic monitoring
 Less likely to return to prison
 Longer survival in community
Evidence
[cont.]
 Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney
(2000)
 Electronic Monitoring + Treatment
 LOWER recidivism for high-risk
 No effect on lower risk
 Match offender to interventions
 Low-risk in high-risk setting
 More recidivism
Evidence
[cont.]
 Padgett, Bales, & Blomberg
 75,661 (RF and GPS)
 Electronic monitoring of offenders in the
community may prove an effective public
safety alternative to prison
Evidence
[cont.]
 Technical violation
 RF = 95.7% less
likely
 GPS = 90.2% less
likely
 SO = slightly less
likely
 Absconding
 RF = 91.2% less
likely
 GPS = 90.2% less
likely
 SO = 42% less likely
 Revocation for new
crime
 RF = 95% less
likely
 GPS = 95% less
likely
 SO = 44.8% less
likely
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns





Lack of research
Workload
Net-widening
False sense of security
Responsiveness to characteristics of
violent offending
 Sanction’s responsiveness to the
motivations for offending
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns




Stigma and degree of control
Redefining the justice orientation
Legal issues
Cost of using GPS
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
 Establish purpose of GPS monitoring
policies
 Clearly defined goals make successful
implementation more probable
 Do not over-estimate actual abilities of
technology
GPS for Sex Offenders:
Some Concerns
 Recognize that policies
may have unintended
negative
consequences and be
prepared with
appropriate remedies
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
 Zero tolerance
policies should be
avoided
 Training
 Funding
 Probation and parole
officers should
expect dramatic
workload increases
 Must maintain
physical contact and
“intense scrutiny”
 Must take all alerts
seriously
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
 Collaborative effort is required
 Law Enforcement
 Jails/Prisons
 Probation and parole officers are NOT
solely responsible for sex offending
prevention
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
 More criminological research in this area
 Research should focus on
 Sex offenders and strategies to control them
 Officer and Offender interaction: How do GPS
policies affect this interaction?
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders





False sense of security
Sanction stacking
Restructured workloads
Anomic conditions in the electronic monitoring program
Isolation
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
 False sense of security
 EM policies may not be providing direct
protection to the community
 95% of all sex crimes involving a victim less than
18 years of age involve a known offender
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
 Sanction stacking
 Occurs when probationers and parolees are
exposed “to a number of punitive and
rehabilitative controls, which often leads to
violations and returns to the correctional
system”
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
 Restructured workloads
 GPS supervision increases per offender
workload by lengthening the enrollment
phase for an offender
 Time spent informing the offender with
various operation and technological
concerns
 Time spent fitting, cleaning, replacing,
maintaining equipment
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
 Anomic conditions in the electronic
monitoring program
 The potential for normlessness in officer
caseloads escalates with unrealistic
expectations and lack of guidance
 One problematic offender will make it difficult
to supervise other offenders
 Officer confusion
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
 Isolation
 Potential to push officers further away from
face-to-face interaction with offenders
Brutalization Effect
 Offenders may perceive the controlling
nature of GPS in negative ways and
react aggressively as a result of the
sanction
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
 General vs. Specific Policy
 States with specific policies may have
dramatically increased workloads
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Sentence Integration
 Officers will need to expand their abilities to
ensure that various types of sentences are
administered simultaneously or
consecutively
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Risk Assessment
 Officers will need to be effectively trained to
determine risk
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Punitive Nature of the Policies
 Probation is generally seen as rehabilitative
and treatment oriented
 GPS may be most punitive form of probation
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Evaluation of Policies
 Officers must be trained to gather
appropriate data that will effectively assess
the utility of policies
 Empowerment approach to evaluate policies
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Reliance on Offender Fees
 Officers need to make sure offenders are
paying for the monitoring
 Officer will need to work with offenders to
make sure they are paying bills
 Officers must recognize that fees alone will
not be enough to pay for GPS
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Breadth of Offenders
 Officers will need to be able to deal with a
variety of offenders
 Child perpetrators
 Young offenders
 Repeat offenders
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Implied Causality
 Narrowly defining cause of sexual abuse
may place individuals at risk and be an
ineffective use of resources
 Laws: sex offending is caused by opportunity and
availability
 Research: histories of violence and other factors
contribute to sex offenders’ motivations
Implications Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Consider workload
 Repairs and
malfunctions
 Responding to alerts
 Consider liability
 Active GPS
 Constant information
 Must process
information
Implications Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Consider offender type
 Location tracking = high-risk sex offender
 Curfew monitoring = lower-risk offenders
Implications Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Improve performance
 Short-term management
 Treatment completion
 No behavior change
 Lack long-term
 Lack cognitive-behavioral adjustment
Implications Current
Legislation and Evidence
 Integrate TOOLS
 Not a panacea
 Highly structured = external control
 Containment of offender’s life
 Overall strategy of ACCOUNTABILITY
 Legislation
 Mandating active GPS
Recommendations for Probation
and Parole Officers
 Must recognize the diverse nature of
offenders
 Each type of offender poses varying levels
of risk and different criminogenic needs
 Treatment and interventions must be
individualized
Recommendations for Probation
and Parole Officers
 Must be adequately trained to use electronic
monitoring strategies to supervise offenders
Recommendations for Probation
and Parole Officers
 Must be a part of a supportive environment that
will help overcome the consequences of
isolation
 Must pay attention to potential for burnout
Recommendations for Probation
and Parole Officers
 Must work with researchers to validate that
response strategies are evidence based
 Need to utilize strategies that are Proven
effective
 Must have clear expectations for the
technology
Contact Information
Matthew DeMichele
American Probation
and Parole
Association
(859) 244-8123
mdemichele@csg.org
Brian Payne
Old Dominion
University
bpayne@odu.edu
Deeanna Button
Old Dominion
University
dbutton@yahoo.com