NCJ Number
219376
Date Published
June 2007
Length
142 pages
Annotation
This report identifies the current practices of agencies that have been using global positioning system (GPS) in their community supervision programs for a variety of client types and purposes.
Abstract
The key lessons learned from veteran global positioning system (GPS) program administrators, officers, and staff were many, however the areas of impact included: (1) agency liability; (2) caseload/workload; (3) client accountability; (4) client impact; (5) crime investigation; (6) deterrence/behavior modification; (7) GPS components and technology; (8) GPS funding and costs; (9) GPS stakeholders; (10) standards and evaluation; (11) training; and (12) vendor relationship. Key success factors identified by agency respondents in the implementation of a GPS included: (1) client compliance; (2) client perception; (3) equipment/vendor quality; (4) good education of stakeholders; (5) pilot programs; (6) policies and procedures; and (7) staff knowledge and dedication. The challenges identified during implementation and ongoing operations included: (1) client compliance; (2) client selection; (3) determining caseload; (4) equipment issues; (5) GPS stakeholder education; (6) imposing change; (7) policies and procedures; (8) training; and (9) victims. Suggestions for improvement and changes to GPS technology, equipment, software, and program operations were reported by agencies. Through an expressed interest by practitioners to know more about how GPS was being used by other agencies, and understand the lessons gained from agencies experienced in using GPS technology, the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice sponsored the Noblis Center for Criminal Justice Technology’s (CCJT’s) efforts to conduct a study of agency experiences with implementing and managing GPS as part of their supervision programs. Agencies that participated in the study included: (1) City and County of Denver, Colorado Electronic Monitoring Program; (2) Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC); (3) Marion County, Indiana Community Corrections; (4) New Mexico Corrections Department; (5) Oakland County, Michigan Community Corrections; (6) Texas Department of Criminal Justice; and (7) U.S. Pretrial Services, Central District of California. Figures, references, and appendixes A-D
Date Published: June 1, 2007