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

Abstract

Objectives: This research examines the effect GPS 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 are used to assess differences between quasi-experimental conditions. To enhance internal validity and mitigate model dependence, we utilize and compare 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 is 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 does 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 costsavings 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.

The Effectiveness of Protection Orders in Reducing Recidivism in Domestic Violence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…However, evaluation research in this area confronts similar challenge to PO research where differing systems and concurrent interventions influence outcomes and make comparisons difficult. Some studies have relied solely on administrative data (Grommon, Rydberg, & Carter, 2017), while others have used multiple data sources (Erez et al, 2012; Erez, Ibarra, & Gur, 2013). As technology advances, it is worth consideration of use in combination with PO to increase targeted intervention and surveillance.…”

The Effect of Mental Illness on Segregation Following Institutional Misconduct

“…The MMW-S weighting procedure eliminated 16 cases (0.3%). These methods have been shown to be successful in past criminological research (Clark & Rydberg, 2016; Grommon, Rydberg, & Carter, 2017; Rydberg & Clark, 2016).…”

Technical Violations and Their Effects on Pretrial/Bond Supervision Outcomes

“…Empirical investigations have considered the effectiveness of GPS or electronic monitoring on pretrial outcomes. Using a sample of individuals arrested for intimate partner violence, Grommon et al (2017) found pretrial GPS supervision was no more effective than traditional pretrial supervision in reducing FTA or rearrest. However, GPS supervision reduced the risk of failure to report to a pretrial supervision officer.…”

“…1 Research has investigated the equity of financial factors associated with bail and pretrial supervision (Garrett et al, 2019; Rabuy & Kopf, 2016; Scott-Hayward & Fradella, 2019). Other studies examine many aspects of pretrial supervision, including, but not limited to, the impact of preventive notification before orientation and court dates (Goldkamp & White, 2006); race, ethnicity, and pretrial outcomes (Donnelly & MacDonald, 2018; Fennessy & Huss, 2013; Freiburger & Hilinski, 2010; Menefee, 2018; Zettler & Morris, 2015); the effectiveness of pretrial risk assessments (Cadigan & Lowenkamp, 2011; Cooprider, 2009; DeMichele et al, 2018; Desmarais et al, 2021; Lowenkamp & Whetzel, 2009; Milgram et al, 2014); conditions of release related to failure to appear (FTA; Azari, 2019; Belenko et al, 1992; Siddiqi, 2002); the effectiveness of electronic monitoring (Grommon et al, 2017; Lemke, 2009; Sainju et al, 2018; Wolff et al, 2017); needs and failure (Gehring & Van Voorhis, 2014); and predictors of pretrial failure (Bechtel et al, 2011; Clipper et al, 2021; Siddiqi, 2002). As individuals on pretrial supervision are released back into the community pending their disposition, understanding which factors are associated with failure is of particular concern to pretrial supervision agencies.…”