Thank you for joining us today!
GPS Monitoring of Domestic Violence Cases: A Multi-Site Study April 27, 2016 1:30-3:00pm Central Time
Presenter: Dr. Edna Erez, Department of Criminology, Law, and Justice University of Illinois at Chicago This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-TA-AX-K027 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this (document/program/exhibit) are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.
Measuring Intimate Partner Violence, Partner Sexual Abuse, and Stalking: Considerations and Critiques The materials are available on our website: http://www.bwjp.org/our-trainingand-services/webinar-gps-monitoring.html AUDIO OPTIONS The audio component can be heard by VoiceoverIP (VoIP) or telephone: VoIP: Select "connect" to internet audio on the Start tab to get your audio streaming through your computer. Telephone: Select “I am dialed in” on the Start tab and dial in from you telephone. Your standard long distance charges will apply .
Dial-in: 641-715-3670 Passcode: 732746
AUDIO TROUBLESHOOTING for VoIP • Verify you selected “connect” to the internet audio • If your computer & speaker volume are turned all the way up, & volume is too low, run the audio wizard under “Tools” at the top of your screen. • If still low volume, try a headset (which is recommended). • Lastly, if all your troubleshooting attempts have failed please dial in from a telephone. Your computer &/or network don’t have the requirements (bandwidth, memory, etc) for VoIP on this webinar.
Electronic Monitoring and Domestic Violence: An Evaluation Study Professor Edna Erez, LL.B., Ph.D. University of Illinois at Chicago Webinar Battered Women's Justice Project April 27, 2016
1
Today’s Presentation:
The use of electronic monitoring (EM) ‐‐ both radio frequency (RF) and GPS technologies ‐‐ in domestic violence (DV)/intimate‐partner violence (IPV) cases z
The experiences of abusers and their victims with GPS technology and programs
The benefits and disadvantages of GPS programs for abusers and victims
Policy implications for the criminal justice system and/or agencies that employ or plan to use GPS technology in DV cases
The Anklet Bracelet
z
GPS Monitoring
z
2
z
DV/IPV Victimization & EM
Three categories/circles of victims in DV/IPV: *Direct/primary (commonly battered women); *Secondary (e.g. family members of direct victims); *Tertiary (public)
Main concern in DV/IPV are direct victims, but secondary and tertiary victims are also affected by, or benefit from technology
Possible tension between views of victims and public regarding what is beneficial or harmful (e.g. resources, prosecutorial interests, cost of technology)
z
Domestic Violence and Women
DV/IPV cuts across dimensions of age, ethnicity, race, sexual preference, and social strata
DV/IPV takes many forms (e.g. verbal, physical, psychological, sexual, financial, stalking, vandalizing property, killing pets, harm to children, and fatalities); not all abuses can be prevented with technological enforcement of ‘no contact’ orders
z
3
Domestic Violence and Women
The typical victims of DV/IPV are women; men can also be victims, but their victimization experience is z different (e.g. level of fear, terror, relative physical strength).
A minority of women are placed on GPS. Their circumstances of GPS enrollment and disparate treatment while on GPS will be discussed
DV and Women Victims
Generally, it takes months and years before battered women report DV to authorities (out of shame; efforts to “try harder,” hope for change in behavior) z
Research shows that women report abuse when they reach the point of “enough is enough”
When women report abuse, try to leave or separate, they are in a heightened risk level
Significance of GPS Technologies in DV Cases Abusive partners have advantages in locating
and harassing victims – being well familiar z with the woman’s daily routines, schedule, and places she frequents Courts have addressed abuse by issuing
protection orders to prevent contact. But a protection order is “only a piece of paper.”
4
Significance of GPS Technologies in DV Cases Without tangible evidence of contact or
attempt to contact, it is “her word against z his” GPS technologies provide tangible evidence
of the abuser’s whereabouts throughout the day/night
GPS Technologies in DV Cases in US Most U.S. programs apply GPS technologies
following an arrest, and for the period up to court disposition z
The post‐arrest/pre‐disposition period is
highly volatile in DV cases‐‐ batterers often seek out their estranged partners for repeat abuse, revenge, or persuade them to withdraw the complaint
GPS Technologies in DV Cases in US
GPS technologies are commonly applied to z bolster court‐mandated ‘no contact’ or protection orders
judges issue such orders in response to a request from the prosecution, the victim or her advocates, or on judges’ own initiatives
5
Domestic Violence and Electronic Monitoring
EM for DV includes two types of surveillance‐‐ RF and GPS
RF is commonly used for home incarceration. A receiver in z the abuser’s home records his presence at home during curfew hours, when he is not allowed out
In the past, protection orders were bolstered by using Bilateral Electronic Monitoring (BEM). A receiver in the victim’s home detected the defendant’s entry into the protected victim’s zone, commonly her home (in a few cases, her workplace or the children’s school)
Domestic Violence and Electronic Monitoring
BEM did not track the movement/presence of batterers in specific areas, and was limited in terms of the number of exclusion zones it could cover‐‐ z the reasons behind the shift to GPS as the preferred technology in DV cases.
GPS has both exclusion zones (areas from which abusers are barred) and inclusion zones (where batterers are supposed to be present); EM does not address ways to contact victims other than movement/presence, e.g. Email; text messages, Facebook
How do GPS for DV Programs in the US work?
Following arrest, alleged aggressors/defendants usually enter GPS programs at bond setting stage, as condition of jail release; commonly on GPS until final case disposition (conviction, acquittal, or dismissal of charges) z
In most programs defendants have to move out of the home they shared with the victim and acquire new residence for the duration of their GPS enrollment (e.g. move to a parent, relative, friend, or hotel)
DV Defendants on GPS are subject to various program rules and liberty restrictions (similar to probation or parole); must abide by rules to stay out of jail
6
How do GPS for DV Programs in the US work?
Defendants assigned to supervising officer to whom they must report and be accountable; can go to work, if they have a job; otherwise are confined to their new residence, with z only a few weekly ‘out hours’ for personal business (e.g. grocery shopping, doctor visits)
Supervision levels vary in intensity/restrictedness. Intensity dependent on philosophy and due process conceptions of agency, staff’s orientation/professional background, characteristics/risk level of the defendant population that enters the program, level of agency’s resources etc.
How do GPS for DV Programs in the US work? (continued)
Extent of contact/communication between agencies and victims varies, from none to extensive. Some agencies have staff dedicated to working with victims, others do not
Agencies commonly tell victims that the GPS purpose is to deter batterers from contacting victims, not protect victims
Normally victims do not carry any equipment. Some agencies offer victims cell phones (if they do not have cells) to contact them when needed, or for the victims to call when they feel they are at risk
z
How do GPS for DV Programs in the US work? (continued)
Duration of defendants’ time on GPS varies between jurisdictions, with an average of eight weeks* and a range of between a few days and almost two years z (dependent on the time it takes to complete the trial)
Most GPS programs are designed to accommodate the circumstances and risk level of male DV offenders
7
GPS for DV Programs in the US: An Evaluation Study Our federally funded evaluation study of GPS programs in the US (see Erez, Ibarra, Bales, and Gur, 2012) included three parts:z a.
Quantitative examinations of three sites that applied GPS in DV cases. The study assessed the short‐ and long‐ term effects of GPS on defendants’ compliance with program rules and repeat violence while on the GPS and during one year follow‐up period. The study documented both short and long term effects
GPS for DV Programs in the US: An Evaluation Study Our federally funded evaluation study of GPS programs in the US (see Erez, Ibarra, Bales, and Gur, 2012) included three parts: b.
Qualitative examination of six GPS for DV programs across the z U.S. through in‐depth interviews with stakeholders who described their experiences with GPS for DV: defendants, victims, police officers, program administrators and staff, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, victim advocates (N=210)
c.
National survey of 149 pretrial agencies that apply GPS technologies describing their practices and experiences with GPS for DV (the findings complemented and supported findings in both parts listed above)
In-depth interviews and site visits
z
Quasiexperimental impact study
National online survey
8
Views of DV Victims Whose Abusive Partners Were Placed on GPS • What do victims find helpful? • What do victims find problematic or disturbing? z
• What should be the role of victims in GPS for DV programs? • What are the intended and unanticipated consequences of GPS for victims (and other stakeholders)?
What Do Victims Like About Having Their Abusers on GPS?
Victims reported relief from incessant abuse, control, and harassment while their abuser was on z GPS; “I got my life back” was a common response
Victims appreciated the increased number of places they could visit, and the peace of mind they experienced knowing that their abuser could no longer ignore protection orders: “once he was put on the GPS and couldn’t contact me, I felt free”
What Do Victims Like About Having Their Abusers on GPS?
With GPS, victims noticed the absence of the batterer, and lack of attempts to contact, z intimidate, harass, or abuse them
Those who had prior experience of being battered but without the GPS recalled their frustration with law enforcement agents demanding proof of harassment
9
What Do Victims Like? (Cont’d)
Victims appreciated receiving explanations about the program, the technology, its advantages and drawbacks; this information helped reduce their fear and anxiety
Victims highly valued visits or calls by police or other agency staff, aimed at keeping victims informed about the technology, or providing updates about the case
In jurisdictions that employed staff dedicated to victim concerns, victims spoke highly of their experience with such staff; the option to call for advice or help on 24/7 basis was particularly appreciated
z
What Do Victims Like? (Cont’d) In regards to exclusion zones:
Victims appreciated having a say in selecting the areas that became exclusion zones (workplace, children’s school, z family members’ homes; church etc..)
Victims who wanted to conceal their new residence welcomed the option of unknown exclusion zones ‐‐ zones that, by victim request, are not revealed to the aggressor or marked in the maps of exclusion zones given to the abuser; the defendant would only receive alerts/orders to move out of these areas if he approaches them
What Do Victims Like? (Cont’d) The impact of GPS on victim‐defendant relationship:
Victims with dependent children were pleased to z have their abuser on GPS in lieu of jail; GPS allowed partners to continue working and fulfill their financial responsibilities for the family
Some victims appreciated the behavioral and attitudinal changes they noticed in their partners as a result of being on GPS (e.g. compliance with rules; appreciating the meaning of loss of control)
10
What Do Victims Like? (Cont’d)
Having their partners on GPS provided victims a sense of control over the relationship with the abusive partner z
Some victims revealed that they visited, or even stayed overnight, at their intimate partner’s new residence (the victims are not being tracked)
These victims expressed satisfaction that they could see the defendants “on their own terms”
What Do Victims Find Problematic? Concerns with the administration of the GPS:
Many victims who did not receive proper explanations about the GPS were confused or anxious about relevant issues z
Some victims expressed concerns that GPS agencies are understaffed; staff may not savvy with the defendant’s devious ways, or unable to “connect the dots”
In jurisdictions in which exclusion zones were narrowly drawn (i.e., around the victim’s residence), victims felt anxious while walking in the neighborhood or even sitting on their balcony
What Do Victims Find Problematic? (Cont’d) Concerns with abusers/defendants behavior while on GPS:
Some victims afraid GPS would further endanger them if restrictions imposed on abusers “make him even more crazy”
Victims whose aggressor/defendant used proxies (e.g., current girlfriend, friends, or family members) to harass them, complained that GPS could not prevent or detect such abuse
Victims whose abusers were particularly controlling and manipulative were afraid their partners would manage to “fool” or “rig” the technology
z
11
What Do Victims Find Problematic? (Cont’d)
Victims who were technologically savvy feared equipment malfunction, or that the abuser would not properly maintain the GPS device
Some victims who requested unknown exclusion zones felt that organizational practices to protect them were paradoxically helping their abusers (e.g. giving defendants a map of unknown zones, or unnecessary alerts to defendants to leave the area)
Victims were upset when GPS was removed without giving them advance notice (e.g., due to a motion by defense)
z
What Do Victims Find Problematic? (Cont’d)
In jurisdictions that required fees for GPS program participation, some victims complained that the fee their aggressor had to pay ended up hurting them, as he could not fulfill his familial financial responsibilities (e.g., child support, rent, health z insurance)
Some victims who wanted the partner to stay out of jail and keep working to support the family ended up paying for the GPS fees
Payment of fees was particularly disturbing for victims who requested to lift the GPS requirement because they felt the GPS was unnecessary (the partner did not pose any danger)
What Do Victims Find Problematic? (Cont’d)
Lack of visual evidence of monitoring (e.g. no receiver at their home) was a source of confusion for some victims
z In some cases, alert calls to victims became a source of anxiety as many calls turn out not to involve danger or “real” safety issues for the victim
Some victims were conflicted as to whether alerts benefit them or cause them more anxiety; frequent alerts that did not involve danger caused victims to lose trust in the GPS program
12
Views of Defendants Placed on GPS What do alleged abusers find helpful or beneficial about being tethered to GPS? z What do they find difficult or problematic?
What can be done to increase the benefits and decrease the disadvantages of GPS programs for abusers? What are the intended and unanticipated consequences of GPS for abusers (and other stakeholders)?
What do Defendants find Beneficial?
Defendants unable to post bond could still be released from jail through GPS enrollment (no bond, or reduced bond); they do not have to languish in jail during legal proceedings
Defendants on GPS continue to work; they do not lose their job because of their legal entanglement/jail stay
Knowing that they are tracked, the GPS keeps them in check, inducing a sense of accountability for what they do or where they spend time (e.g. do not stop at the local bar)
z
What do Defendants find Beneficial?
Being on a strict time schedule, many felt the program provides structure to their daily lives, including better time management z
Many defendants stated they learnt to live without the victim, in some cases making separation easier
Having to move out of their own home (if they cohabitated with the victim) and into a family member’ home (e.g. parent, brother) rekindled or strengthened familial relationships
13
What do Defendants find Beneficial?
Having to spend much time inside a home, during curfew hours, helped defendants complete various projects, develop hobbies, look for work, return to school, and reimagine their lives without the victim being part of it
In some cases, being on the GPS shielded defendants from false accusation by vengeful partners
Some defendants stated that wearing the bracelet enhanced their masculinity in the eyes of certain types of girls/dates: “So, the real ghetto girls, they think it [the technology] is sexy though. ‘Let me see your box.’ I get that all the time, ‘let me see your box.’ Like, ‘show me, I ain’t never seen it”
z
What do Defendants find Problematic?
Wearing the bracelet can be difficult, particularly in certain jobs (e.g. construction work, high boots), and areas where signal is weak (working in freezer, or high rise buildings)
Visibility of the bracelet, or the noise they emit when not in radius, is associated with a stigma or embarrassment; in some cases loss of job, friends, or social support
Defendants in permanent state of anxiety about forgetting equipment, its malfunction, inadvertently violating rules (e.g. taking a bus whose route eclipses the exclusion zone)
z
Female Defendants on GPS: Distinct Pathways and Unique Hardships
Gendered pathways to GPS:
Female victims of abusers who manage to turn blame on the woman z
Single mothers overburdened with home/children responsibilities who snap
Romantic triangles
Same sex couples
14
Female Defendants on GPS: Distinct Pathways and Unique Hardships Unique hardships of female defendants : The equipment: visible bracelet contradicts notions of z femininity; must avoid wearing dresses or fashionable boots; stigma about being aggressive/violent The program: Program rules are based on a male model of clients. Women homemakers and/or with young children experience unique difficulties in carrying out familial duties because of program restrictive rules
Effects of GPS on the Criminal Justice System: Unintended Benefits and Problems Jurisdictions that employ GPS for DV exhibited lower dismissal rates (or higher conviction rate) of DV cases – possibly because:
z
Victims are empowered to follow through with the case
Abusers are prevented from intimidating or persuading their victims to drop their complaints (via effective enforcement of “no contact”)
Some jurisdictions use the GPS for non‐DV related aims, such as releasing indigent DV defendants who cannot make bail (the net‐widening phenomenon)
Policy Implications
Understanding DV dynamics is critical for designing and administering effective GPS for DV programs
z Victim protection and safety concerns/principles should shape GPS program attributes and the use/application of GPS in DV cases
Victim‐defendant relationship and interactions must be taken into account when designing and administering aspects of GPS for DV programs
15
Policy Implications
GPS for DV programs need to reflect a balance between victim needs/circumstances and defendants rights and interests
Offender circumstances/offense type/risk level should be matched with program attributes such as restrictiveness/intrusiveness/duration to prevent defendants’ feeling a sense of injustice and undermine the criminal justice aim of victim protection
z
Policy Implications
Victim‐centric programs that view victims as a resource rather than a burden, maintain regular contact with victims, explain program rules and listen to victims concerns, are effective for several reasons: z Understanding program operation and practices reduces victims’ anxiety and allays their fears, (e.g. when they see their abuser freely moving in the area) Informed victims acquire realistic expectations of GPS program capabilities, and they develop better safety plans
Policy Implications
Victims can be (and often are) a source of important information about the defendant routines, habits, or preferences
Victims can provide useful feedback on the functioning of the GPS and the defendant’s adaptation to it
Victim‐centric programs generally enhance victims’ sense of safety, and actual safety; they also increase trust in the CJ system without imposing special burdens on abusers
z
16
References Erez, Edna Peter R. Ibarra, William Bales and Oren M. Gur (2012) GPS technologies and Domestic Violence: An Evaluation Study. A report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Washington DC. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238910.pdf z Erez, Edna and Peter R. Ibarra (2007) “Making your home a shelter: Electronic monitoring and victim re‐entry in domestic violence cases.” British Journal of criminology, 47(1):100‐120 Erez, Edna, Peter R. Ibarra and Norman A. Lurie (2004) “Electronic monitoring of domestic violence cases: A study of two bilateral programs” Federal Probation, June: 15‐20. Gur, Oren M., Peter R. Ibarra and Edna Erez (2016) Specialization and the use of GPS for domestic violence by pretrial programs: Findings from a national survey of U.S. practitioners. Journal of Technology and Human Services, 34(1): 32–62
References Ibarra, Peter R. (2005) “Red flags and trigger control: The role of human supervision in an electronic monitoring program.” Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance 6: 31‐48 Ibarra, P. R., Oren M. Gur, and Edna Erez (2014) Surveillance as casework: Supervising domestic violence defendants with GPS technology. Crime, Law, and Social Change, z 62: 417‐444 Ibarra, Peter R. and Edna Erez (2011) The Gendering of Pre‐trial: women defendants on GPS in Domestic Violence Cases. A paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Washington DC. November. Ibarra, Peter R. and Edna Erez (2005) “Victim‐Centric Diversion: The electronic monitoring of domestic violence cases.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(2): 259‐ 276
Discussion Thank you! z
Professor Edna Erez
[email protected]
17
