Global Positioning System Monitoring of High-Risk Sex Offenders: Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned

• Author: Susan F. Turner,Sarah M. Smith,Alyssa W. Chamberlain,Jesse Jannetta
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 December 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419884723
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419884723

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(9) 1259 –1285

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419884723

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Global Positioning System

Monitoring of High-Risk Sex

Offenders: Implementation

Challenges and Lessons

Learned

Alyssa W. Chamberlain1, Sarah M. Smith2,

Susan F. Turner3, and Jesse Jannetta4

Abstract

Agencies incorporating new technology inevitably face challenges in the

implementation process. In response to the passage of Proposition 83, which

mandated lifelong supervision of people convicted of sex offenses in California, San

Diego County initiated a pilot program assessing Global Positioning System (GPS)

monitoring of such offenders considered high risk for reoffending. Using interviews

of parole agents and administrators, parole agent records of supervision, and GPS

monitoring data, we assess the challenges and lessons learned from the program

which help inform the current policy context of electronic monitoring. Results

show that rigorous GPS supervision involves substantial workload and resource

increases for parole agencies, and may not be appropriate for all individuals

convicted of sex offenses. The ethical and legal challenges of electronic monitoring,

more generally, require further attention. The future of GPS monitoring will

depend on how programs are implemented and resources are managed, as well as

how ethical issues are addressed.

Keywords

community corrections, GPS, sex offenders

1Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA

2California State University, Chico, USA

3University of California, Irvine, USA

4Urban Institute, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Alyssa W. Chamberlain, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 411 N.

Central Avenue, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.

Email: alyssa.chamberlain@asu.edu

884723CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419884723Criminal Justice Policy ReviewChamberlain et al.

research-article2019

1260 Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(9)

Introduction

Over the past several decades, heightened emphasis has been placed on effectively

managing and supervising individuals convicted of sex offenses. Much of this focus

resulted from a series of high-profile cases triggering legislation requiring increased

restrictions on these individuals’ movements within communities. The Sexual

Offender Act of 1994 mandated that offenders provide law enforcement a current

address for inclusion in a sex offender registry (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson

& D’Amora, 2007), while the passage of Megan’s Law required that states notify

residents about people living in the community who have been convicted of sex

crimes (Levenson & Cotter, 2005). Most states have since adopted their own ver-

sion of Jessica’s Law that expands registration requirements, enhances residency

restrictions, and requires the use of electronic monitoring to track offenders’ move-

ments in the community.

California’s version of Jessica’s Law, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control

Act, also known as Proposition 83 (Prop 83), resulted in nearly 400 changes to existing

California law regarding the manner by which individuals convicted of sex crimes

were sentenced, supervised, and monitored in the community (Boyd, 2007; Sexual

Predator Punishment and Control Act). The law’s most significant provisions related

to the ability of law enforcement to track and apprehend people convicted of sex

offenses, such as excluding them from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park,

and mandated Global Positioning System (GPS) supervision for life (California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR], 2008).

In 2010 alone, nearly 9,000 such offenders were released in California, all sub-

ject to lifelong GPS supervision (Bulman, 2013; CDCR, 2008, 2016). Although the

passage of Prop 83 mandated that sex offenders be placed on GPS for life, the law

did not specify who was responsible for monitoring offenders once their parole

term was completed. Importantly, the CDCR is responsible for supervising sex

offenders only while under parole supervision. Given the return to determinate sen-

tencing of some offenders in the 1990s in California and other states, offenders with

“expiration sentences” might not be monitored by the state, as they are not man-

dated to parole terms once they complete their prison sentences. Private companies

may monitor these individuals, but it is unclear which, if any, agency is responsible

for monitoring them. These types of gaps between legislation and the practical

realities of enforcing such legislation pose potential consequences for public safety.

With large numbers of offenders to monitor, the passage of these new laws and

strategies presented formidable challenges to CDCR.

Crime legislation is sometimes hastily drafted following localized, rare incidents

and then extrapolated across many states or even to a national level (Griffin & Stitt,

2010); as a result, its passage and implementation may be complicated by a lack of

clear guidelines. California’s Prop 83 was passed within a similar context and was

approved without a clear plan for its implementation. In anticipation of Prop 83,

CDCR began testing the use of GPS technology to track offenders in an attempt to

minimize some of the issues it might encounter after its passage. In June 2005, CDCR