Abstract
The use of electronic monitoring (EM) as a tool by criminal justice agencies to monitor offenders in the community is not a new notion. From its inception 50 years ago, it was heralded as a solution for many prevailing problems, including large caseloads, crowded jails and prisons, and the high costs of incarceration and supervision. These early predictions, however, proved overly optimistic due to both misconceptions about the technology as well as technical problems with the equipment. It was not until Global Positioning System (GPS) technology was re-engineered as a supervision tool that EM emerged again as a “hot new technology” for crime control. States now use EM with and without GPS at various points in the judicial system and with a wide variety of different offenders, including drunk drivers, spouse abusers, substance abusers, mentally ill offenders, and gang offenders. However, due to the recent proliferation of laws that require increase penalties and intensified surveillance for those convicted of sex crimes, no offender group has been more associated with the use of EM than sex offenders. In this chapter, we briefly review various methods of sex offender management, and then focus on the effectiveness research and practical application of EM systems using the California experience with high-risk sex offenders to illustrate the problems and limitations of program implementation as well as the cost of such a system. Finally, we review the policy implications that arose from the experiences in California.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
There were only four main differences in the costs of the two alternatives. These are (1) the GPS equipment, (2) the management contract with the GPS vendors, (3) the GPS training of parole agents, and (4) the larger caseloads of non–GPS agents’ results in the need for fewer agents to manage the volume of HRSOs.
- 2.
Effectiveness estimates were obtained in Gies et al. (2012).
References
Bales, W. D., Mann, K., Blomberg, T. G., Gaes, G., Barrick, K., Dhungana, K., & McManus, B. (2010). A quantitative and qualitative assessment of electronic monitoring. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Beck, J. S. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York, N.Y.: Guilford.
Bishop, L. (2010). The challenges of GPS and sex offender management. Federal Probation, 74(2), 33–35.
Black, W. C. (1990). “The CE plane: A graphic representation of cost-effectiveness.” Medical Decision-Making, 10, 212–214.
Brooks-Gordon, B., & Bilby, C. (2006). Psychological interventions for treatment of adult sex offenders: Treatment can reduce reoffending rates but does not provide a cure. British Medical Journal, 333(7557), 5–6.
Brooks-Gordon, B., Bilby, C., & Wells, H. (2006). A systematic review of psychological interventions for sexual offenders 1: Randomised control trials. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 17(3), 442–466.
Burrell, W. D., & Gable, R. S. (2008). From B.F. Skinner to Spiderman to Martha Stewart: The past, present, and future of electronic monitoring of offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(3–4), 101–118.
Center for Sex Offender Management. (2001). Recidivism of sex offenders. Silver Spring, Md: Center for Sex Offender Management.
Center for Sex Offender Management. (N.d.). Understanding sex offenders: An introductory curriculum. http://www.csom.org/train/etiology/index.html
Conway, P. (2006). Personal communication with William Burrell, June 13.
Crowe, A. H., Sydney, L., Bancroft, L., & Beverly L. (2002). Offender supervision with electronic technology. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
Davey, M., & Goodnough, A. (2007). Doubts rise as states hold sex offenders after prison. New York Times. http://www.njisj.org/documents/SexOffenderSeries_NYT.doc, Mar 4.
DeMichele, M., Payne, B. K., & Button, D. M. (2008). Electronic monitoring of sex offenders: Identifying unanticipated consequences and implications. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(3–4), 119–135.
Elzinga, H., & Nijboer, J. A. (2006). Probation supervision through GPS. European Journal of Criminology, Criminal Law, and Criminal Justice, 14(4), 366–381.
Finn, M. A., & Muirhead-Steves, S. (2002). The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 293–312.
Florida Senate Committee on Criminal Justice. (2004). Global positioning system (GPS) technology use in monitoring the activities of probationers. In The Florida senate interim project report 2005–126. Tallahassee, Fla. http://archive.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2005/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2005-126cj.pdf
Furby, L., Weinrott, M. R., & Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 3–30.
Gainey, R. R., Payne B. K., & O’Toole M. (2000). “The relationships between time in jail, time on electronic monitoring, and recidivism: An event history analysis of a jail-based program.” Justice Quarterly, 17(4), 733–52.
Gies, S. V. (2015). A tale of two studies: Lessons learned from GPS supervision in California corrections. Corrections Today, 77(7), 20–22.
Gies, S. V., Gainey, R., Cohen, M. I., Healy, E., Duplantier, D., Yeide, M., et al. (2012). Monitoring high-risk sex offenders with GPS technology: An evaluation of the California supervision program: Final report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Gies, S., Randy Gainey, V., & Healy, E. (2013). Using GPS technology to monitor high-risk sex offenders: California’s experience with implementation. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 25(2), 5–8.
Hanson, R. K. (1998). “What do we know about sex offender risk management?” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(1–2), 50–72.
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 865–891.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton–Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis. Public Works and Government Services 2004–02.
Iacone, A. (2011). Questions linger over fate of state’s sexual violent predator program. Virginia Statehouse News. http://virginia.statehousenewsonline.com/4082/questions-linger-over-fate-of-state%E2%80%99s-sexual-violent-predator-program/, July 8.
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). (2008). Tracking sex offenders with electronic monitoring technology: Implications and practical uses for law enforcement. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/IACPSexOffenderElecMonitoring.pdf
Interstate Commission on Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS). (2006). GPS Supervision Update. http://www.interstatecompact.org/Tools/SurveyResults.aspx
Knighton, J. C., Murrie, D. C., Boccaccinni M. T., & Turnrer, D. B. (2014). “How likely is “likely to reoffend” in sex offender civil commitment trials?” Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 293–304.
Langan, P. A., Schmitt, E. L., & Durose, M. R. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Levin, H. M. (1983). Cost effectiveness: A primer (New perspectives on evaluation). Sage Publications, Inc.
Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis (2nd edn.). Thousand. Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Lilly, J. R. (2006). Issues beyond empirical EM reports. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 93–102.
Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146.
Marques, J. K., Wiederanders, M., Day, D. M., Nelson, C., & van Ommeren, A. (2005). “Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from california’s Sex Offender Treatment Evaluation Project (SOTEP).” Sex Abuse, 17, 79–107.
McKay, B. (2002). The state of sex offender probation supervision in Texas. Federal Probation, 66(1).
Nellis, M. (2006). Surveillance, rehabilitation, and electronic monitoring: Getting the issues clear. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 103–108.
Office of Criminal Justice Services. (2006). Sex offenders: Report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission. Ohio: Columbus.
Padgett, K. G., Bales, W. D., & Blomberg, T. G. (2006). Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 61–92.
Payne, B. K., & DeMichele, M. T. (2011). Sex offender policies: Considering unanticipated consequences of gps sex offender monitoring. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 117–187.
Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2015). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 215–37.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2011). Is androgen deprivation therapy effective in the treatment of sex offenders? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(2), 315–32.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2003). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sachwald, J. (2007). Electronic monitoring of sex offenders. Presentation for the National Legislative Briefing on Sex Offender Management Policy. http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/pubsafety/Sachwald.pdf
Schaffer, M., Jeglic, E. L., Moster, A., & Wnuk, D. (2010). Cognitive–behavioral therapy in the treatment and management of sex offenders. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 24(2), 92–103.
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J. E., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, N.Y.: Random House.
State of California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). (2007). Analysis of the 2007–08 Budget Bill (Judicial and Criminal Justice). Sacramento, Calif. http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/crim_justice/cj_05_anl07.aspx
Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole. (2007). Monitoring Tennessee’s sex offenders using global positioning systems: A project evaluation. Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole.
Turner, S., Chamberlain, A. W., Jannetta, J., & Hess, J. (2015). Does gps improve recidivism among high risk sex offenders? Outcomes for California’s GPS pilot for high risk sex offender parolees. Victims & Offenders, 10(1), 1–28.
Vess, J., & Skelton, A. (2010). Sexual and violent recidivism by offender type and actuarial risk: Reoffending rates for rapists, child molesters, and mixed-victim offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(7), 541–554.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gies, S.V. (2016). The Use of Electronic Monitoring as a Supervision Tool. In: Jeglic, E., Calkins, C. (eds) Sexual Violence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44504-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44504-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44502-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44504-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)