Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does GPS supervision of intimate partner violence defendants reduce pretrial misconduct? Evidence from a quasi-experimental study

Journal of Experimental Criminology volume 13, pages 483–504 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

This research examines the effect global positioning system (GPS) technology supervision has on pretrial misconduct for defendants facing intimate partner violence charges.

Methods

Drawing on data from one pretrial services division, a retrospective quasi-experimental design was constructed to examine failure to appear to court, failure to appear to meetings with pretrial services, and rearrest outcomes between defendants ordered to pretrial GPS supervision and a comparison group of defendants ordered to pretrial supervision without the use of monitoring technology. Cox regression models were used to assess differences between quasi-experimental conditions. To enhance internal validity and mitigate model dependence, we utilized and compared results across four counterfactual comparison groups (propensity score matching, Mahalanobis distance matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and marginal mean weighting through stratification).

Results

Pretrial GPS supervision was no more or less effective than traditional, non-technology based pretrial supervision in reducing the risk of failure to appear to court or the risk of rearrest. GPS supervision did reduce the risk of failing to appear to meetings with pretrial services staff.

Conclusions

The results suggest that GPS supervision may hold untapped case management benefits for pretrial probation officers, a pragmatic focus that may be overshadowed by efforts to mitigate the risk of pretrial misconduct. Further, the results contribute to ongoing discussions on bail reform, pretrial practice, and the movement to reduce local jail populations. Although the cost savings are not entirely clear, relatively higher risk defendants can be managed in the community and produce outcomes that are comparable to other defendants. The results also call into question the ability of matching procedures to construct appropriate counterfactuals in an era where risk assessment informs criminal justice decision-making. Weighting techniques outperformed matching strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. In addition to the propensity score and Mahalanobis matching techniques, we considered the application of coarsened exact matching (CEM). This technique reduces observed covariates thought to influence selection decisions down to blocks of strata. In turn, these blocks of strata are used to identify comparison units and match these units to a treatment unit (Iacus et al. 2012). Unfortunately, due to the relatively extreme differences between the GPS and comparison groups in the present application, this matching strategy was unable to produce a sufficient number of exact matches. Known as the “tyranny of dimensionality” ( Nagin et al. 2009, p. 145), where exact matches on multiple dimensions are simply not feasible as the number of covariates to be matched increases, this is a major limitation of precision-based matching. Indeed, using the same matching specification as the propensity score and Mahalanobis matching techniques, along with reasonable cutpoints for quantitative variables, the CEM procedure was only able to identify two GPS and two comparison units (n = 4) as exact matches, resulting in a 99.9% sample loss. In light of this limitation, we did not employ a CEM comparison group in the estimation of treatment effects.

  2. The average length of pretrial supervision for the treatment group was 141.60 days (SD = 123.98), and it was 117.94 days (SD = 100.75) for the comparison group. The mean difference between the two groups was statistically dependable [F(1, 1482) = 16.18, p < 0.001]. A Kruskal–Wallis H test and Mann–Whitney test also indicated significant mean rank and median length of supervision differences between the groups [χ2(1) = 14.02, p < 0.001].

  3. Although the estimated treatment effect from the propensity matched, Mahalanobis distance, and IPTW comparison groups must be discounted due to their observed imbalances, supplemental models that entered imbalanced covariates in the Cox regression equation produced results similar to those presented in Table 3 (see Table A1 in the supplementary material). It is important to note that, once the imbalances are controlled for, the estimated treatment effect of pretrial GPS supervision on rearrest observed from the propensity matched group is no longer statistically dependable. This finding indicates that imbalances were responsible for the statistically significant estimated coefficient in Table 3 and further reinforces the importance of attending to selection bias issues through the careful construction of comparison groups.

  4. Since GPS supervision is the highest level of supervision available at the study site, all of the mismatches between a pretrial service supervision recommendation and a judicial order for the treatment group are based upon a recommendation for non-GPS supervision. Most (57%; 75/154) of these defendants were recommended to intensive supervision, which is the next most intense form of supervision available, follows the same terms as GPS supervision, but does not include GPS monitoring or other forms of technology. Among the unmatched pool of defendants in the comparison group, 117 defendants (45% of the comparison group subsample of mismatched recommendations and orders; 117/259) were recommended to GPS supervision. Eighty percent of those recommended to GPS supervision were instead ordered to intensive supervision.

References

  • Austin, P. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 3083–3107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bales, W., Mann, K., Blomberg, T., Gaes, G., Barrick, K., Dhungana, K., & McManus, B. (2010). A quantitative and qualitative assessment of electronic monitoring. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, W. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(1), 71–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasko, B. L., Friedmann, P. D., Rhodes, A. G., & Taxman, F. S. (2015). The parolee–parole officer relationship as a mediator of criminal justice outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(7), 722–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, C. R. (2003). How can practitioners help an abused woman lower her risk of death? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

  • Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T. L., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1127–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. M. L., McCabe, S. A., & Wellford, C. (2007). Global positioning system (GPS) technology for community supervision: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

  • Cadigan, T. P. (1991). Electronic monitoring in federal pretrial release. Federal Probation, 55(1), 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., et al. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K., & Rydberg, J. (2016). The effect of institutional educational programming on prisoner misconduct. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(4), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2016.1229770.

  • Cooprider, K. (2014). A descriptive analysis of pretrial services at the single-jurisdictional level. Federal Probation, 78(3), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooprider, K. W., & Kerby, J. (1990). A practical application of electronic monitoring at the pretrial state. Federal Probation, 54(1), 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., Ibarra, P. R., Bales, W. D., & Gur, O. M. (2012). GPS monitoring technologies and domestic violence: An evaluation study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., & Ibarra, P. R. (2007). Making your home a shelter: Electronic monitoring and victim re-entry in domestic violence cases. British Journal of Criminology, 47(1), 100–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., Ibarra, P. R., & Gur, O. M. (2013). Using GPS in domestic violence cases: Lessons from a study of pretrial programs. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 25(1), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., Ibarra, P. R., & Lurie, N. A. (2004). Electronic monitoring of domestic violence cases—A study of two bilateral programs. Federal Probation, 68(1), 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, C., Ratkovic, M., Hazlett, C., Yang, X., & Imai, K. (2016). CBPS: Covariate Balancing Propensity Score. R package version 0.11. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CBPS.

  • Frank, R. H. (2000). Why is cost–benefit analysis so controversial? The Journal of Legal Studies, 29(S2), 913–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaes, G. G., Bales, W. D., & Scaggs, S. J. A. (2016). The effect of imprisonment on recommitment: An analysis using exact, coarsened exact, and radius matching with the propensity score. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(1), 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gies, S. V., Gainey, R., Cohen, M. I., Healy, E., Yeide, M., Bekelman, A., & Bobnis, A. (2013). Monitoring high-risk gang offenders with GPS technology: An evaluation of the California supervision program final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkamp, J. S., & White, M. D. (2006). Restoring accountability in pretrial release: The Philadelphia pretrial release supervision experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 143–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, X. S., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1993). Comparison of multivariate matching methods: Structures, distances, and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 2(4), 405–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gur, O. M., Ibarra, P. R., & Erez, E. (2016). Specialization and use of the GPS for domestic violence by pretrial programs: Findings from a national survey of U.S. practitioners. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 34(1), 32–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, E. L. (2003). Mandatory arrest and no-drop policies: Victim empowerment in domestic violence. Boston College Third World Law Journal, 23(1), 159–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, G., & Hong, Y. (2009). Reading instruction time and homogeneous grouping in kindergarten: An application of marginal mean weighting through stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 54–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, P. R. (2005). Red flags and trigger control: The role of human supervision in an electronic monitoring program. In S. L. Burns (Ed.), Ethnographies of law and social control (sociology of crime, law and deviance) (vol. 6, pp. 31–48). Bingley: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, P. R., & Erez, E. (2005). Victim-centric diversion? The electronic monitoring of domestic violence cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23(2), 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, P. R., Gur, O. M., & Erez, E. (2014). Surveillance as casework: Supervising domestic violence defendants with GPS technology. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 62(4), 417–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, K., & Ratkovic, M. (2014). Covariate balancing propensity score. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76(1), 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keele, L. J. (2011). An overview of rbounds: An R package for Rosenbaum bounds sensitivity analysis with matched data. Ohio State University typescript.

  • King, G., & Nielsen, R. (2016). Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge.

  • Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., Walker, R., & Faragher, T. M. (2006). Protective orders: Questions and conundrums. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7(3), 175–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, T. K., & Walker, R. (2009). Civil protective order outcomes: Violations and perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(4), 675–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, T. A., Wilson, T., Nagin, D. S., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Evolutionary regression? Assessing the problem of hidden biases in criminal justice applications using propensity scores. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 631–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. R. (1991). Legal images of battered women: Redefining the issue of separation. Michigan Law Review, 90(1), 1–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxfield, M. G., & Baumer, T. L. (1992). Pretrial home detention with electronic monitoring: A nonexperimental salvage evaluation. Evaluation Review, 16(3), 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 115–200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Justice. (2015). Intimate Partner Violence. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/pages/welcome.aspx

  • 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), 61–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvemini, A. V., Piza, E. L., Carter, J. G., Grommon, E. L., & Merritt, N. (2015). Integrating human factors engineering and information processing approaches to facilitate evaluations in criminal justice technology research. Evaluation Review, 39(3), 308–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. A., & Todd, P. E. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics, 125(1–2), 305–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzberg, B. H. (2002). The tactical topography of stalking victimization and management. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3(4), 261–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2014.953236.

  • Visher, C. A., Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., & Tueller, S. (2017). Evaluating the long-term effects of prisoner reentry services on recidivism: What types of services matter? Justice Quarterly, 34(1), 136–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2015.1115539.

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice under grant number 2010-IJ-CX-K023. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations reflect those of the authors and not any aforementioned agency. This research has been conducted in accordance with the National Institute of Justice’s requirements for research independence and integrity; the authors have no vested interests in commercial communication technology products, processes, or services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, 801 W. Michigan Street, BS 4067, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Eric Grommon

  2. School of Criminology and Justice Studies, Center for Program Evaluation, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 113 Wilder Street, HSSB 4th Floor, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA

    Jason Rydberg

  3. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, 801 W. Michigan Street, BS 4081, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Jeremy G. Carter

Authors
  1. Eric Grommon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason Rydberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeremy G. Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Grommon.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grommon, E., Rydberg, J. & Carter, J.G. Does GPS supervision of intimate partner violence defendants reduce pretrial misconduct? Evidence from a quasi-experimental study. J Exp Criminol 13, 483–504 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9304-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9304-4

Keywords

  • Domestic violence
  • GPS supervision
  • Intimate partner violence
  • Pretrial
  • Pretrial misconduct
  • Pretrial supervision

Search

Navigation