Surveillance as casework: supervising domestic violence defendants with GPS technology

Abstract

Academic discussion about surveillance tends to emphasize its proliferation, ubiquity, and impact on society, while neglecting to consider the continued relevance of traditional approaches to human supervision, an oversight insofar as surveillance is organized through practices embedded in justice system-based casework. Drawing from a multi-site study of pretrial personnel utilizing global positioning systems (GPS) technology for domestic violence cases in the U.S., a comparative analysis is offered to illustrate how the handling of a "problem population" varies across community corrections agencies as they implement surveillance regimes. In particular, the study finds that surveillance styles reflect whether an agency is directed toward crime control and risk management, providing treatment and assistance, or observing due process. These programmatic thrusts are expressed in how officers interact with offenders as cases, both directly and remotely. In contrast to the ambient monitoring of environments and populations through data-banking technologies, the interactive surveillance styles described in the present study highlight the role of casework in surveillance.

Specialization and the Use of GPS for Domestic Violence by Pretrial Programs: Findings from a National Survey of U.S. Practitioners

“…By contrast, research in the United States-where EM has been adopted by probation and community corrections-has found that officers who use EM in DV pretrial programs have greater latitude to mix hard and soft technologies (Ibarra, 2005;Ibarra et al, 2014), approximating the case assessment and intervention model more fully. 6 Trained as specialists in DV cases, officers use insights gleaned from hard technologies (e.g., monitoring logs, urine screens, text messages) to pursue leads and gather additional information that can organize the "working of the case" in particular directions (e.g., assistance, law enforcement), as set by the agency (Ibarra, 2005;Ibarra et al, 2014).…”

“…Research conducted there demonstrates that EM officers do not utilize the information that they acquire to engage in the kind of case supervision associated with probation, in either a "treatment" or "crime control" sense: they do not have the requisite training or direction, but are instead evaluated relative to profitdriven benchmarks that limit the time officers can spend on a given case and hence result in cursory follow-up in the field (Hucklesby, 2011;Jones, 2005;Paterson, 2007). By contrast, research in the United States-where EM has been adopted by probation and community corrections-has found that officers who use EM in DV pretrial programs have greater latitude to mix hard and soft technologies (Ibarra, 2005;Ibarra et al, 2014), approximating the case assessment and intervention model more fully. 6 Trained as specialists in DV cases, officers use insights gleaned from hard technologies (e.g., monitoring logs, urine screens, text messages) to pursue leads and gather additional information that can organize the "working of the case" in particular directions (e.g., assistance, law enforcement), as set by the agency (Ibarra, 2005;Ibarra et al, 2014).…”

“…As practitioners may be tasked with using one or more devices, and supervising specialized or diverse caseloads, examining the application of specific EM technologies to specialized caseloads can offer insights relevant to supervision with other technologies and offender categories. Elsewhere (Ibarra, Gur, & Erez, 2014) we have demonstrated how a DV pretrial program's "sense of mission" is reflected in the "style" of supervision adopted by officers/caseworkers, and hence, how information generated by GPS technologies is used to interact with alleged offenders as "cases" under "surveillance." This article offers a national snapshot of how EM and GPS are used in U.S. program operations (circa 2009), and examines how "specialization"-which here refers to the relative number of technologies and technological capabilities used and offender-categories monitored-relates to the perceived value, effectiveness, and organizational use of GPS technologies in supervising DV defendants.…”

Police as Alert Responders? Lessons Learned about Perceived Roles and Responses from Pretrial GPS Supervision of Domestic Violence Defendants

“…Efforts to pair police with community correctional agencies continue to grow in popularity in the United States (Murphy, 2008) and are representative of a movement toward maintaining surveillance on high risk populations in the criminal justice system as a whole (Cotter and De Lint, 2009;Ibarra et al, 2014;Jannetta and Lachman, 2011;McGarrell et al, 2005;Paterson and Clamp, 2014). These partnerships have the potential to enhance public safety by adding focused deterrence and an additional layer of monitoring to known offenders under supervision, interrupting criminal behaviors through timely responses, and addressing locally specified crime problems through intelligence sharing (Jannetta andLachman, 2011: McGarrell et al, 2005;Murphy, 2008).…”

“…Study participants have provided unique perspectives regarding their experiences with police and their expectations of police roles in a pretrial setting where GPS supervision is used to monitor high-risk defendants. In an era where the monitoring of offenders with GPS technology has rapidly expanded across the United States and has gained momentum in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Latin America (Cotter and De Lint, 2009;Ibarra et al, 2014;Paterson and Clamp, 2014), these perspectives generate insights as to how police can be leveraged to create new, or enhance existing, criminal justice responses to IPV/DV offenses. This study seeks to broaden knowledge on perceived police roles and responses in managing IPV/DV crimes, contribute to ongoing discussions of best practice for police and criminal justice system processing, and advance an agenda for future research focused on the extended roles of the police during and after IPV/DV encounters.…”