Victim and Victim Support Staff Experiences of a Domestic Violence Electronic Monitoring Program in Australia

• Published date: 01 July 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211058950
• Author: Ye In (Jane) Hwang,Paul Leslie Simpson,Tony Gerard Butler
• Date: 01 July 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211058950

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2023, Vol. 67(9) 976 –995

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211058950

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Victim and Victim Support

Staff Experiences of a

Domestic Violence Electronic

Monitoring Program in

Australia

Ye In (Jane) Hwang1, Paul Leslie Simpson1,

and Tony Gerard Butler1

Abstract

This study investigates the experiences of victims of domestic violence (DV)

involved in a bilateral electronic monitoring (EM) program. Semi-structured

interviews were conducted with six victims whose associated person of interest

participated in an EM program post-release, as well as 13 victim support staff.

Thematic analysis revealed seven themes: (1) Safety and validation, (2) Initial

anxiety, (3) Minimal intrusion on daily life, (4) Psychological relief and feelings of

safety, (5) Freedom to engage in daily activities, (6) Post-EM concerns for safety,

and (7) An effective deterrent for some, but not for all. Overall, the experiences

reported by victims and support staff were positive and evident of victim-centricity.

The main defining experience of the DVEM program for victims was improved

feelings of safety during the program and increased autonomy and confidence in

going about their daily activities. However, there is an urgent need to consider

post-EM safety of victims.

Keywords

domestic violence, qualitative research, electronic monitoring, victims of crime,

community orders, victim support services

1UNSW Sydney, NSW, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Ye In (Jane) Hwang, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Level 2 Samuels Building, Sydney, NSW

2052, Australia.

Email: jane.hwang@unsw.edu.au

1058950IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X211058950International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyHwang et al.

research-article2021

Hwang et al. 977

Introduction

Since its first emergence in the United States in the 1980s, the electronic monitoring

(EM) of individuals convicted of criminal offenses via use of an on-body tracking

device (e.g., anklet or bracelet) has been increasingly utilized in penal systems

throughout the United States, Europe and Australia. EM, which broadly involves the

use of location technologies such as global positioning system (GPS) or radio fre-

quency, has traditionally been used to detain, restrict or supervise individuals con-

victed of sex offenses (Gies et al., 2016). Such individuals may be monitored at

different points in the criminal justice system, either as an alternative to incarceration

or as a condition of post-prison supervision.

A more recent application of EM has been its use in cases of family or intimate

partner violence (referred to collectively as “domestic violence”; DV). EM for DV

involves both unilateral surveillance, where individuals are restricted from entering

prescribed “exclusion zones” relating to the victim, as well as the possibility of bilat-

eral surveillance, whereby victims in cases of DV have the option to also carry a

matched EM device. In recent decades, criminology and social science scholars have

discussed a shift toward a new approach in justice that has involved “victim-centric”

thinking and practices, of which EM for DV programs may be an example (Erez &

Ibarra, 2007; Garland, 2001). In an important paradigm shift away from the concept of

victims shelters or refuges that dominated Western countries since the 1960s, EM for

DV is said to empower victims to reclaim their homes and areas of living as safe

spaces (Erez & Ibarra, 2007).

Juxtaposed to the shift toward victim-centric practices and the rise of EM, some

scholars have advised caution in using technological solutions such as EM, arguing

that criminal justice authorities may fall prey to them as a cure-all without fully com-

prehending the less visible and/or less measurable impacts that they may have on those

involved (Corbett & Marx, 1991, p. 399). The available body of literature remains

small and is focused on describing the implementation methods of specific EM pro-

grams (Bartels & Martinovic, 2017; Moss, 2018; Øster & Rokkan, 2018) or exploring

the effectiveness of EM on deterring or preventing recidivism (see Belur et al., 2020

for review). Less understood are the lived experiences of victims associated with per-

sons of interest (POIs) who take part in EM programs (both unilateral and bilateral)

and whether victim-centricity is indeed realized. Whilst there has been no operational-

ized definition of victim centricity, it entails at minimum a consideration of the inter-

ests of the victim in efforts to reduce DV, such that programs aim not only to deter

reoffending but to enable and empower victims in their daily lives by improving feel-

ings of autonomy, confidence and feelings of safety.

A collection of published works by a common group of authors spanning 2004 to

2016 have focused specifically on the implementation of EM for DV in the United

States. (Erez & Ibarra, 2007; Erez et al., 2004, 2012, 2013; Gur et al., 2016; Ibarra &

Erez, 2005; Ibarra et al., 2014). The authors conducted in-depth surveys with 34 vic-

tims and 19 social service providers (Erez et al., 2012, 2013), as well as a web-based