Monitoring High-Risk Sex Offenders With GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program, Final Report

2012 California:

The purpose of this evaluation was to measure the effectiveness of the global positioning system (GPS) monitoring of high-risk sex offenders (HRSOs) on parole. Despite the increasing number of HRSOs on electronic monitoring programs, little is known about how effective these programs are in increasing offender compliance and reducing recidivism.

This study integrated results, cost, and a process evaluation to assess the impact of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s GPS supervision program. The study population was drawn from all HRSOs released from prison and living in California between January 2006 and March 2009. The sample included 516 subjects who were divided equally into a treatment group on GPS monitoring and a control group that was not monitored.

Measures included compliance and recidivism. Findings show that GPS monitoring is more effective than traditional supervision. The GPS group had significantly better results. The GPS program costs about $8.51 more per day per parolee than traditional supervision. ..Source.. by Stephen V. Gies, Randy Gainey, Marcia I. Cohen, Eoin Healy, Dan Duplantier, Martha Yeide, Alan Bekelman, Amanda Bobnis, and Michael Hopps

Monitoring High-Risk Sex Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program

April 2012 California:

Abstract:
Despite the increasing number of high-risk sex offenders (HRSOs) who are being placed on electronic monitoring programs, little is known about how effective these programs are in increasing offender compliance and in reducing recidivism. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of the global positioning system (GPS) monitoring of HRSOs who are released onto parole.

This study integrates outcome, cost, and process evaluation components. The outcome component assesses the impact of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s GPS supervision program by employing a nonequivalent-group quasi-experimental design with a multilevel survival model. We also use a propensity score matching procedure to account for the differences between the treatment and comparison groups. The study population is drawn from all HRSOs who were released from prison between January 2006 and March 2009 and residing in the state of California. The final sample includes 516 subjects equally divided between the treatment and control groups. The treatment group consists of HRSOs who were placed on GPS monitoring. The control group is made up of similar offenders who were not placed on the GPS system during the study period. The resulting sample shows no significant differences between the groups on any of the propensity score matching variables.

The effectiveness of the program is assessed using an intent-to-treat (known as ITT) approach. The two main outcomes of interest are compliance and recidivism. Compliance is measured through violations of parole. Recidivism is assessed in a variety of ways, including 1) rearrest, 2) reconviction, and 3) return to prison custody. Each outcome is assessed with a survival analysis of time-to-event recidivism data, using a Cox proportional hazards model. In addition, we use frailty modeling to account for the clustering of parole agents within parole districts.

The findings indicate, despite the baseline similarities, a clear pattern of divergence in outcomes during the 1-year study period. The subjects in the GPS group demonstrate significantly better outcomes for both compliance and recidivism. In terms of compliance, the multivariate model shows that the hazard ratio of a sex-related violation is nearly three times as great for the subjects who received traditional parole supervision as for the subjects who received the GPS supervision. In terms of recidivism, compared with the subjects who received the GPS monitoring supervision, the hazard ratio for any arrest is more than twice as high among the subjects who received traditional parole supervision. Similarly, for both a parole revocation and any return-to-custody event, the hazard ratio suggests that these events are about 38 percent higher among the subjects who received traditional parole supervision.

The cost analysis indicates that the GPS program costs roughly $35.96 per day per parolee, while the cost of traditional supervision is $27.45 per day per parolee—a difference of $8.51. However, the results favor the GPS group in terms of both noncompliance and recidivism. In other words, the GPS monitoring program is more expensive but more effective.

Finally, the process evaluation reveals that the GPS program was implemented with a high degree of fidelity across the four dimensions examined: adherence, exposure, quality of program delivery, and program differentiation. ..Source.. by California DOC

United States v Jones: GPS Monitoring, Property, and Privacy

5-6-2012 Washington DC:

Summary:
In United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), all nine Supreme Court Justices agreed that Jones was searched when the police attached a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to the undercarriage of his car and tracked his movements for four weeks. The Court, however, splintered on what constituted the search: the attachment of the device or the long-term monitoring. The majority held that the attachment of the GPS device and an attempt to obtain information was the violation; Justice Alito, concurring, argued that the monitoring was a violation of Jones’s reasonable expectation of privacy; and Justice Sotomayor, also concurring, agreed with them both, but would provide further Fourth Amendment protections. This report will examine these three decisions in an effort to find their place in the body of existing Fourth Amendment law pertaining to privacy, property, and technology. ..For the remainder of this case: by Richard M. Thompson II, Legislative Attorney

Sex Offender Supervision and GPS Monitoring Task Force

October 2010:

Executive Summary:

Citizens across California have become increasingly concerned about sex offenders returning to their neighborhoods. They want greater assurances that these offenders will not place their children or themselves in jeopardy of victimization. As a result, laws have recently been passed that increase incarceration and community supervision periods, place restrictions on where sex offenders can reside, and prohibit them from being in specific locations.

In California, there are approximately 85,000 registered sex offenders in our communities, more than any other state in the nation. Even with increased sentences, nearly all convicted sex offenders sentenced to state prison will eventually be released back to their respective communities. They will be placed on supervised parole for a period of time to monitor their reintegration and help protect the public. Currently, fewer than 10% (approximately 6,600) of all California sex offenders are on supervised parole in the community and being monitored by GPS technology. Additionally, there are approximately 2,900 sex offender parolees that are on parole, who are either in custody pending revocation, committed to a State Mental Hospital or have absconded supervision.

Over the past year, two horrific crimes have focused the concerns of citizens. Phillip Garrido and John Gardner, both registered sex offenders, committed unthinkable acts that forever changed the lives of the victim’s families and communities. The Governor requested a review of the John Gardner case be completed by the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) to offer recommendations for improving sex offender management. Meanwhile, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated an independent investigation of these cases and also offered recommendations on how to improve sex offender supervision.

Acting on the content of the reports, CDCR reviewed relevant policies and practices and made substantive changes to both sex offender parole supervision policies and GPS tracking policies. Further, at the direction of Secretary Matthew Cate, the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) convened a task force of CDCR staff, outside public safety representatives, and victim advocates to review the OIG and CASOMB recommendations, as well as relevant sex offender supervision policies and practices. The objective of the task force is to make further recommendations to improve public safety as it relates to parolee sex offender supervision.

The Sex Offender Supervision and GPS Monitoring Task Force met weekly between July and September 2010. Participants included statewide representatives from CDCR, Board of Parole Hearings, local law enforcement, probation, district attorneys, Office of the Inspector General, National Institute of Justice, treatment providers, and victim advocates.

Following presentations from subject matter experts and comprehensive discussions, the task force decided upon the following recommendations. It is the intent of the Task Force that these recommendations not be viewed individually as they are interrelated and are most effective when implemented together. For the remainder of this report: by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Within the report is their recommendation for "Tiered Supervision" which clearly explains why the Adam Walsh Act's Classification System is absolutely useless for Public Safety. Consider these highlights of what they said:

Recommendation: Implement tiered parole supervision, according to the offenders risk to re-offend and danger to the community.

Tiered supervision allows Parole Agents to devote the most time to those sex offenders that present the greatest danger to the community. There are several tools that can be used to help distinguish which sex offenders pose the greatest risk. Risk assessment instruments such as the Static-99, which is currently being used by CDCR, is one such tool. Other risk assessment instruments, as discussed elsewhere in this report, measure risk of sexual and non-sexual violence.

A tiered supervision model is based on continual assessment of variables including criminal history, life circumstances, length of time in the community and overall adjustment and stability. Presently, CDCR has a two-tiered system: High Risk Sex Offenders and all other sex offenders. An increased ability to determine risk permits CDCR to employ a three or four-tiered system of supervision. This allows CDCR to move sex offender parolees through a dynamic continuum of supervision.

CDCR data concludes sex offenders pose the greatest risk of re-offense during their first year of parole supervision. For that reason, during this initial period, all sex offenders should be supervised at the most intensive level.

Knowing that the Adam Walsh Act is an "offense based" system, not based on any assessment of individual offenders, and not a "continual assessment of variables (equate parole officers to local law enforcement) including criminal history, life circumstances, length of time in the community and overall adjustment and stability.," clearly says AWA is wrong for the community and will not enhance public safety! Effectively the Adam Walsh Act would override their recommendations.

Monitoring Tennessee's Sex Offenders Using GPS Systems: A Follow-up Evaluation

September 2008:

Introduction
Governor Bredesen signed Senate Bill 2235/House Bill 2314 that took effect on July 1, 2007 authorizing the Board of Probation and Parole (hereinafter referred to as BOPP) to continuously monitor offenders convicted of rape of a child using global positioning systems (GPS) for the remainder of their life. This act has been referred to as “Jessica’s Law.” Since passage of this act, BOPP has made GPS monitoring a mandatory condition of community supervision for ALL offenders convicted of rape of a child, with the exception of those who are currently incapacitated.

The passage of Jessica’s Law expanded BOPP’s global positioning system pilot project to a statewide endeavor. Because the legislation expanded the project statewide, it had a fiscal impact on BOPP. Specifically, expansion of the project required additional positions and the associated costs that extended beyond prior project appropriations. A total of $1,890,900 was added to BOPP’s base budget (funding a total of 46 positions) in fiscal year 2007-08. These dollars were in addition to the $1,235,000 that was already part of BOPP’s base budget to fund the operational cost of GPS. The $1,235,000 was added to the base budget in fiscal year 2004-05.

In the fiscal year 08-09 budget, funding for both the statewide expansion of GPS monitoring for rape of a child offenders (Jessica’s Law) totaling $1,890,900, and the appropriation for operating costs, totaling $1,235,000, were made non-recurring. BOPP requested a budgetary improvement (see Appendix A) to restore those dollars to recurring status in BOPP’s base budget for fiscal year 2009-2010. The 46 positions established with the Jessica’s Law appropriation have been filled and the new staff has successfully expanded the original GPS pilot project to a statewide monitoring program for those sex offenders with the highest risk to the public. The total requested includes the $1,235,000 operational funding, the $1,890,900 Jessica’s Law appropriation, and $181,000, the cost of funding the three percent raise received since the appropriation was made (based on the position costs listed in the Department of Human Resource’s classification/compensation plan).

In reviewing the overall GPS supervision program, BOPP recommends the continuation of GPS as a supervision tool. A detailed analysis of the benefits and limitations associated with GPS monitoring follows.

For the remainder of this paper: by State of Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole

Electronic Monitoring Expanded to Target Communities’ More Dangerous Offenders

November 2007:

Scope:
In accordance with state law, this progress report informs the Legislature of actions taken by the Department of Corrections in response to a 2005 OPPAGA report. 1, 2 This report presents our assessment of the extent to which the department has addressed the findings and recommendations included in our report and examines the department’s current use of electronic monitoring.

Background:
The Department of Corrections’ Office of Community Corrections is responsible for supervising approximately 150,000 offenders living in communities throughout Florida. The department uses electronic monitoring as a tool to enhance surveillance of selected offenders under community supervision. On June 30, 2007, the department had 1,415 offenders under electronic surveillance, representing 1.2% of the offenders under active supervision in the community. 3

At the time of our 2005 report, the department used three types of electronic monitoring: an active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system, a passive GPS system, and a Radio Frequency system. The active GPS system tracks offender movements in real time and identifies offenders who enter specified exclusion zones, such as schools or public parks. When these violations occur an alarm notification is sent to the monitoring center and the offender’s probation officer. The passive GPS system tracks offender movements but not in real time; each day the offender’s probation officer receives reports of the previous day’s movement. The radio frequency monitoring system uses an offender’s landline telephone to monitor whether the offender is home at required times. As of June 30, 2007, most (89%) monitored offenders were supervised with the active GPS system.

In Fiscal Year 2006-07 the department paid vendors approximately $2.9 million to track 1,814 offenders. For Fiscal Year 2007-08, the Legislature appropriated $7,392,936 for electronic monitoring.

For the remainder of this paper: by OPPAGA supports the Florida Legislature by providing evaluative research and objective analyses to promote government accountability and the efficient and effective use of public resources.

UNDER SURVEILLANCE: AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING

2006 Florida:

Research Summary:
This study addresses the effectiveness of electronic monitoring (EM) for serious offenders supervised in the community. Using data on 75,661 offenders placed on home confinement in Florida from 1998 to 2002, we find that both radio-frequency and global positioning system monitoring significantly reduce the likelihood of technical violations, reoffending, and absconding for this population of offenders. Additionally, we find that offenders placed on home confinement with EM are significantly more serious than those placed on home confinement without EM, which casts doubt on the anticipated net-widening effect of this particular intermediate sanction.

Policy Implications:
Given the anticipated increase in the use of EM in the immediate future, policy makers will surely be faced with questions about its effectiveness in preventing or deterring further criminal activity among offenders in the community, as well as concerns about the intensity of surveillance it affords and a subsequent increase in the likelihood of a prison sentence or return to prison for technical violations. The results presented here suggest that such concerns may be overblown and that EM of offenders in the community may prove an effective public safety alternative to prison. Additional implications of this research include decision making regarding which offenders should be placed on EM, which type of monitoring device will be the most cost-effective and efficient, and the potential for front-end net-widening if states adopt the practice of “Got ‘em?’ Use ‘em.’”

For the remainder of this paper: by KATHY G. PADGETT -and- WILLIAM D. BALES -and- THOMAS G. BLOMBERG Florida State University

A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring

January 2010:

Abstract:

Research Purposes: The purposes of this research include: (1) determining the effect of electronic monitoring (EM) as a supervision enhancement for offenders in terms of absconding, probation violations, and the commission of new crimes; (2) providing an explanation of the findings; (3) documenting the implementation of EM; (4) identifying and documenting the impact that EM has on offenders’ personal relationships, families, employment, and assimilation within the community; and (5) developing evidence-based recommendations to improve public safety and lessen negative consequences for offenders and their families.

Research Design and Methodology: Data sources include: (1) administrative data from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), which include 5,034 medium- and highrisk offenders on EM and 266,991 offenders not placed on EM over a six year period; and (2) qualitative data collected through face-to-face interviews with 105 offenders, 36 supervising officers, and 20 administrators from fourteen counties in Florida. Random assignment of offenders to the experimental (EM) and control (non-EM) groups was not possible; therefore, propensity score matching was employed to establish the two groups. Propensity score matching, as a statistical procedure, is an effective method of selecting subjects for experimental and control groups whereby selection bias is minimized and the groups closely resemble each other across key variables (Rubin, 2006; Rosenbaum, 2002) One-hundred-twenty-two covariates were used to predict EM participation, which enhanced the predictive accuracy of the matching procedure. Cox’s regression techniques were utilized to analyze time-to-failure for various outcome measures. The qualitative data, which included forced-choice and open-ended questions, were systematically analyzed and include descriptive statistics and illustrative quotes from respondents.

Research Results and Conclusions: The quantitative analysis demonstrates that EM reduces offenders’ risk of failure by 31 percent and that global positioning system (GPS) monitoring results in 6 percent fewer supervision failures compared to radio frequency (RF). All categories of offenders, regardless of offense type, experienced fewer supervision violations as a result of EM; however, the effect was reduced for violent offenders. Offenders of all age groups and those on different forms of community supervision benefited from EM.

The findings from the qualitative analysis indicates that: (1) administrators reported that EM goals and objectives were being met; (2) officers’ and offenders’ opinions of EM’s impact on reducing undesirable behavior are consistent with the findings from the quantitative assessment; (3) EM status and equipment does have negative consequences for offenders’ families, employment opportunities, and adjustment in the community; (4) there is a need to refine the selection of offenders identified as the most appropriate for EM; (5) EM is used as an alternative to prison in approximately one-third of the cases; (6) EM devices frequently lose the satellite signal resulting in numerous, unnecessary alerts; (7) EM operations may benefit from increasing judges’ understanding of the equipment, the most appropriate subjects for EM, and key operational aspects of EM; and (8) the most important, recent enhancement to FDOC’s EM program has been the statewide monitoring center that has significantly reduced the number of alerts. This reduction in alerts enables officers to devote more time to essential supervisory responsibilities.

For the remainder of this report: by The Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research

This report was prepared under Grant 2007-IJ-CX-0017 from the National Institute of Justice. Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, Florida State University, or the Florida Department of Corrections.

---

Selected excerpts pertaining to "Impact on Offenders" (pps-15-16)

3. Offenders and, especially officers, believe EM has negative consequences for the offenders in terms of their relationships with their spouses, significant others, and their children. Practitioners should determine if there are procedures that could be implemented that would reduce these effects.

4. A large proportion of offenders expressed a sense of shame about being on EM and felt they were stigmatized by others in a way that did not represent their actions. Additionally, the majority of offenders believed that media accounts of EM exacerbates the levels of stigma they receive. The current plan to reduce the visibility of the GPS device that receives the satellite signal should help reduce this consequence in the future.

5. Offenders and officers were almost unanimous in their assessment that the electronic tether is a serious detriment to offenders' ability to obtain employment and remain employed.

6. EM does not negatively impact offenders in obtaining adequate housing. However, the state, county, and city zoning restrictions on residency for sex offenders' results in detrimental outcomes that are counter to their intentions. Officers and administrators overwhelmingly expressed that these residency restrictions have significant negative consequences that may result in actually jeopardizing, rather than enhancing, public safety. Policy makers should consider changes to the state laws and local ordinances that establish residency restrictions to address their unintended consequences.

7. A significant portion of offenders on EM who are required by the courts to reimburse the state for the cost of this technology are limited by their ability to abide by this requirement because of the infrequency with which jobs are available among this relatively unskilled and under-education population, other costs offenders must pay for supervision and treatment and other personal financial obligations relating to housing, food, and transportation, child care, etc. These reimbursement requirements should be reevaluated by policy makers to determine their appropriateness among this population.

10. A critical issue that arose during the interviewing process relative to the EM equipment— GPS specifically—was the sometimes frequent problem in which offenders’ MTDs loses a signal with a satellite. Frequent occurrences of losing the satellite signal can be consequential for offenders at their places of work because they have to vacate their areas of responsibility. The FDOC and the EM vendor are well aware of the problem of maintaining satellite signals in certain locations and appear to be doing everything possible to diminish this problem to the extent possible. Continued evaluation in this regard should remain a priority of the EM program.

12. The Statewide Monitoring Center, implemented in October 2007, is clearly one of the most successful enhancements to FDOC’s EM program in the recent past. The strategy has resulted in drastic reductions in the number of minor alerts that officers have to address, which enables them to devote more time to other important matters relating to the supervision of offenders in the community and has expanded the lines of communication and enhanced the working relationship between the FDOC and the vendor to improve the general operation of the EM program. EM programs nationwide should consider including this strategy in their operation.

Report on New Jersey’s GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders

December 2007 New Jersey:

BACKGROUND
New Jersey’s “Sex Offender Monitoring Pilot Project Act” became law in August 2005, authorizing the New Jersey State Parole Board to subject up to 250 of the State’s most dangerous registered sex offenders to round-the-clock Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring. The statute was retroactive in calling for GPS monitoring of all Tier III sex offenders who were not incarcerated or subject to civil commitment. The statute also allowed the State Parole Board Chairman to subject non-Tier III sex offenders to GPS monitoring, based on established statutory criteria and an assessment of their risk to the public.

The Act requires the Chairman of the State Parole Board to “submit a report evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot program to the Governor and the Legislature within 90 days upon completion of the pilot program. The report shall recommend whether the pilot program should be continued as a Statewide program.” Based on his review of the pilot program, State Parole Board Chairman Peter J. Barnes Jr. strongly supported extending GPS monitoring indefinitely, prior to the program’s expiration on August 11, 2007. GPS monitoring now continues under the “Sex Offender Monitoring Act,” which was enacted before the pilot program ended.

As explained in this report, only one of the GPS program’s total 225 sex offenders has been implicated in a new sex crime. This initial data suggests the State Parole Board’s GPS monitoring has contributed to a significantly lower recidivism rate than nationwide data indicates for high-risk sex offenders. Moreover, the GPS monitoring data was available to aid the investigation, by placing the sex offender at the time and place of the new crime.

The State Parole Board’s caseload of more than 4,300 sex offenders is one of the largest in America, mainly due to the advent of Supervision for Life sentencing guidelines for sex offenders. Under state law, the vast majority of sex crimes committed on or after October 31, 1994 will result in Supervision for Life. Prior to the introduction of this sentencing guideline, sex offenders made up less than 5 percent of the State Parole Board’s caseload. Today, they make up nearly a third of the caseload, with a net increase of about 45 new sex offenders each month. The Legislature has designated the State Parole Board as the body responsible for managing all sex offenders sentenced to lifetime supervision.

The goal of the State Parole Board’s supervision of sex offenders – independent of whether a particular sex offender is subject to GPS monitoring – is to prevent further victimization. The agency employs Evidence-Based Practices, drawn from the most effective supervision practices in New Jersey and elsewhere, for sex offenders and other offenders on the State Parole Board’s caseload.

Due to the compulsive and secretive behavior shown by sex offenders, however, these offenders require specific, intensive methods of supervision. Following guidelines recommended by the National Institute of Justice,1 the State Parole Board has adopted a “containment” approach to sex offender supervision. This approach includes intensive parole supervision and information sharing with partner law enforcement agencies; sex offender-specific treatment to help control sex offenders’ impulsivity; and will soon include polygraph examinations in certain cases, to obtain sexual history information and monitor offenders for behaviors that increase the risk of re-offense.

The GPS monitoring of New Jersey’s highest-risk sex offenders is a vital component of this model. It helps parole officers verify sex offender behavior; allows law enforcement agencies to share information and intercept new violations; encourages sex offenders to accept responsibility for their actions; and provides data that can serve as invaluable evidence for police and courts.

For the remainder of this research: by Peter J. Barnes Jr., Chairman, New Jersey State Parole Board