1 / 28

Break-Out Session Probation Part II

Break-Out Session Probation Part II. Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders: Technology, Evidence, and Implications for Community Supervision. American Probation and Parole Association Offender Supervision with Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide, 2nd Edition

benjamin
Download Presentation

Break-Out Session Probation Part II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Break-Out SessionProbation Part II

  2. Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders: Technology, Evidence, and Implications for Community Supervision American Probation and Parole Association • Offender Supervision with Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide, 2nd Edition • Sex Offender Community Based Supervision: Case Management Strategies and Tools

  3. Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders [cont.] • Technology • Rapidly evolving • Legislation = active GPS • Technology offers one more tool • Combined with others • Means to end = structured containment • Not the end • Provides WINDOW into offender’s life

  4. Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders [cont.] • Many electronic tools for sex offenders • Technology • Radio frequency • Location tracking • Computer monitoring and forensics • Crime and GPS data integration • Polygraph • Others

  5. Radio Frequency: Martha Stewart’s Model

  6. Radio Frequency

  7. Radio Frequency [cont.] • Home arrest • Curfew monitoring • Judge Love (Albuquerque, NM) • 1983 • By 1990 in 50 states • Several countries • Repairs • False positives of violations

  8. Radio Frequency [cont.] • Drive-by units • Random calling • Identity verification • Slow scan photos • Electronic voice analysis • Remote alcohol detection (late 1980s)

  9. Location Tracking

  10. Late 1990s Cellular Technology 24 Satellites U.S. Department of Defense Active and Passive Exclusion Zones Workload Differences Liability Legislation Electronic Alibi Location Tracking [cont.]

  11. Location Tracking [cont.]

  12. Polygraph and More

  13. Polygraph and More [cont.]

  14. Where’s the Evidence? • Does electronic monitoring work? • Does electronic monitoring reduce recidivism? • Does electronic monitoring improve case management? • How do we know?

  15. 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?

  16. Where’s the Evidence? [cont.] • Not a FIX • Electronic Monitoring does not replace OFFICER • ONE Tool • Incorporated with other TOOLS • Create highly structured CONTAINMENT

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. Evidence [cont.] • Revocation for 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

  21. Evidence [cont.] • Revocation for new crime • RF = 95% less likely • GPS = 95% less likely • SO = 44.8% less likely

  22. Implications

  23. Implications [cont.] • Consider workload • Repairs and malfunctions • Responding to alerts • Consider liability • Active GPS • Constant information • Must process information

  24. Implications [cont.] • Consider offender type • Location tracking = high-risk sex offender • Curfew monitoring = lower-risk offenders • Consider cost • RF = $1.97 • Active GPS = $8.97 • Prison = $51.22

  25. Implications [cont.] • Improve performance • Short-term management • Treatment completion • No behavior change • Lack long-term • Lack cognitive-behavioral adjustment

  26. Implications [cont.] • Integrate TOOLS • Not a panacea • Highly structured = external control • Containment of offender’s life • Overall strategy of ACCOUNTABILITY • Legislation • Mandating active GPS

  27. Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders Contact Information: Matthew T. DeMichele Research Associate American Probation and Parole Association c/o The Council of State Governments 2760 Research Park Drive Lexington, Kentucky 40578-1910 859-244-8123 (phone) 859-244-8001 (fax) mdemichele@csg.org

  28. Questions andComments

More Related