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
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 frequency, has traditionally been used to detain, restrict or supervise individuals convicted 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 bilateral 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 comprehending 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 programs (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 persons 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 operationalized definition of victim centricity, it entails at minimum a consideration of the interests 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 feelings 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 victims and 19 social service providers (Erez et al., 2012, 2013), as well as a web-based survey completed by practitioners (N = 114) involved in delivering bilateral DV electronic monitoring programs in the United States (Gur et al., 2016). Key findings include that victims who were aware that the POI would be monitored, were confident of the technology and believed the program to be significantly beneficial to them. Evidence of the benefits of victim-centricity were found, as victims reported relief in response to learning that the POI would be monitored as well as enhanced feelings of safety and comfort. A sense of “freedom” in being able to resume daily life was also described (Erez et al., 2013). There were also challenges and concerns voiced by victims, which mostly related to lack of understanding or confidence in the ability of the program to offer complete protection from the POI. Victims reported some privacy concerns whilst on the program, particularly relating to the potential for their whereabouts (e.g., home or work address) to be made known to the POI (Erez et al., 2012).
There has been very limited exploration of victim experiences of EM, and even less specific to those who have participated in programs of EM for DV. Very little has been published on victim experiences outside of the United States, with only preliminary work available in the US and Australia regarding the potential of using EM for DV. One published report regarding the promise of pilot schemes for bilateral GPS monitoring of DV cases in the UK (Hucklesby & Holdsworth, 2016) revealed victims were enthused by the introduction of the program and reported enhanced feelings of safety.
In Australia, one research report has been published regarding the perceived impact of EM programs for DV on victims (Nancarrow & Modini, 2018). A total of 30 individuals with lived experience as victims of family and domestic violence from three Australian states participated in interviews and focus groups regarding their opinions and expectations of EM programs for DV. Findings indicated that victims generally agreed with the potential of such programs to enhance victim safety, though they believed not all POIs would necessarily be deterred from victim contact. Victims voiced numerous concerns as to whether the EM would sufficiently reduce risk, for example whether police would be able to respond in a timely manner to alerts, or whether EM is flexible enough to accommodate victims’ transient lifestyles. Also raised was the potential for negative consequences such as POIs using alternative means to contact the victim (e.g., through social media), the exclusion zones inadvertently notifying the POI of the victim’s location, and a false sense of security. Overall, these findings point to the need to explore more fully the experiences and consequences for victims who participate in bilateral programs of EM for DV.
The present study responds to the knowledge gap surrounding victim experiences of EM programs for DV, which have recently been implemented across Australia. It is the first study to investigate the lived experiences of victims whose associated POIs were subject to a program of EM for DV in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, as well as the experiences of key victim support services staff. It aims to explore whether the experiences of victims reflect the positive benefits victim-centricity, and, conversely, if there are any ill-effects experienced as a result of the program.
Method
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (reference: HC17469). Approval was also granted from Corrective Services New South Wales (reference: 100309). This work was completed as part of a Feasibility Evaluation of the NSW DVEM program, commissioned by the NSW Department of Communities and Justice. See Hwang et al. (2021) for interviews conducted with POIs on the DVEM program.
Participants and Eligibility
Participants for the present study included (i) victims whose associated POI was a participant in the NSW DVEM program, and (ii) victim support services staff who supported such victims. Specific inclusion criteria for victims included having an associated POI who was either a current or recent (exited within the last month) participant in the DVEM program. For staff, inclusion criteria included current support of at least one victim who met the inclusion criteria. Recruitment for the interviews occurred between June 2019 and March 2020. Community corrections staff at Corrective Services NSW are responsible for selecting and managing individuals leaving prison who are placed on the EM program. Eligibility for the DVEM program is determined based on six criteria:
A score on the level of service inventory–revised (LSI-R) that indicates a medium–high or high risk of reoffending. The LSI-R is an actuarial assessment tool designed to identify the offender’s risks and needs with regard to reoffending (Watkins, 2011).
The individual is subject to a current parole order or intensive corrections order (a super- vised community sentence) (Wang & Poynton, 2017) for a domestic violence offense.
The individual has demonstrated a pattern of repeat domestic violence offending or is considered a threat to the victim’s safety.
The individual has an active no-contact apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) with metered geographical restrictions in place.
The individual and victim live in an area where EM may be managed effectively.
The residential address of the victim can be verified.
Recruitment
POIs who participate in the program are managed by Community Corrections staff from Corrective Services NSW—the government agency responsible for the supervision of POIs in the community. Once it is decided that a POI will be placed on the program, Community Corrections staff make a referral to one of two government-funded, gender-appropriate victim support agencies for victims of violent crimes in NSW, who engage with the associated victim and provide support services. Included in this referral is an assessment of whether a matched monitoring device is available and suitable for the victim.
Upon receipt of a referral, victim support services staff contact the victim to notify them that the POI will be released from prison and that they will be participating in the DVEM program. They assess the victim’s suitability and willingness to be involved with the support service. Victim support services are responsible for developing a victim safety plan and maintaining contact with the victim to provide appropriate support during the POI’s EM period. If a matched monitoring device was deemed an option for the victim, an additional eligibility assessment is conducted by the support service and, with the victim’s consent, a matched device is provided.
Stage 1: Victim Recruitment
Staff at both male and female victim support services were instrumental in recruitment for the study. An information package regarding the study was prepared by the research team and sent to staff who advised eligible victims about the study. Victims were provided with an information and consent form, and for interested victims, permission was sought to pass on their contact details to the research team. The contact details of interested victims were emailed to the research team, who contacted the victim by phone to obtain verbal consent to participate in the study.
Stage 2: Victim Support Services Staff Recruitment
The initial response to recruitment efforts was less than expected. Six referrals were received in the first 4 months of recruitment (July–October 2019), of which only three victims were contactable and completed an interview. According to program data, N = 130 POIs participated in the program during the 12 month period from November 2018 to November 2019 (Hwang et al., 2021). Ongoing consultation occurred with key program stakeholders to determine the best method of better capturing victim experiences of the DVEM program. It was determined that victim support services staff would be recruited to complete additional interviews. This amendment was approved by the UNSW Human Research Ethics Committee and Corrective Services NSW. Information and consent forms were developed and sent to all victim support services offices in NSW, and eligible staff members were encouraged to contact the research team via email or phone to express interest in participating. Upon expressing interest, verbal consent was obtained to participate in the interview.
Interview Methods
Semi-structured phone interviews were designed to explore the psychological, social and physical experiences, and impacts of participating in the program. Questions were also asked about the organizational, technological, and social practices attached to the program. Staff were specifically instructed to describe only that which had been directly communicated to them by victims. Interviews were conducted by two researchers (JH and EB). For victim interviews, a brief demographic questionnaire was administered. Victims were also asked a series of multiple-choice questions in which they rated their feelings of safety both at home and in their local areas at three different time points: prior to the POI being on the program, once the POI was on the program, and after the POI exited the program. Feelings of safety were rated on a 4-point Likert scale: (1) very unsafe, (2) unsafe, (3) safe, (4) very safe. Victims were mailed gift cards valued at $60 AUD for their participation. Victim support services staff were not reimbursed for their participation.
Analysis and Rigor
Interview transcripts were imported to NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2012) software. Thematic analysis was undertaken with an inductive approach, in order to identify, organize and present common patterns (themes) across participants’ responses with minimal subjective interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2006). A seven-step process was undertaken. (1) Familiarization—JH read through the entire set of transcripts to build familiarity with the dataset. (2) Coding—Sections of meaningful text from each transcript were highlighted and organized into “codes.” Coding occurred at a semantic level, meaning the text was taken at face value with no further interpretation imposed. (3) Generating themes—The generated codes were reviewed and any patterns within the codes identified. This resulted in the organization of codes into themes. Creation of themes occurred in an iterative fashion, guided by principles of “internal homogeneity” and “external heterogeneity” (Patton, 1990) to ensure that codes within each theme were consistently representative of that theme, and that each theme was sufficiently distinguishable from other themes. Themes that were vague or not consistent enough within the data to be relevant were discarded. (4) Reviewing themes—The emergent themes were considered against one another and combined, newly created or discarded as necessary. (5) Defining and naming themes—The wording of each theme was further reviewed to ensure it best reflected the content of the codes, and that the themes together were representative of the entire dataset. (6) Writing up—A description for each theme was created. Illustrative quotes that best represent each theme were selected. (7) Visualization—A thematic network (Attride-Stirling, 2001) was created to illustrate each theme according to the relevant corresponding period during the EM program and organized according to degree of positivity/negativity (Figure 1).
Schematic diagram of themes and subthemes arranged by program stages.
Whilst qualitative data is not subject to the same methods of validation as quantitative data, several techniques were employed to maximize the rigor of the present study. First, care was taken to ensure the interviewers were free from any biases or expectations during the interviews. Both interviewers participated in an initial briefing and subsequent regular de-briefs with a clinical research nurse who had both clinical and research experience with violent POIs and their victims. During these briefings, the interviewers addressed any concerns, prejudices, expectations or reactions to their interviews with victims and support staff. Second, negative or deviant case analysis was employed, such that both common patterns as well as variations in the reported experiences and views of interviewees were noted and presented. Particular care was taken to note any differences between the reported experiences of victims and support staff. Finally, thick, rich description has been employed in presenting the results of this study. That is, each theme is described in sufficient detail with many illustrative quotes such that readers may be fully informed regarding each theme. This creates transparency in both the content of the themes and the conclusions drawn from them.
Results
Participant Characteristics
Six victims and 13 victim support services staff (“staff,” herein) completed interviews. Staff were recruited from eight of 29 female victim support services in NSW. One additional staff member was recruited from the only male victim support service in NSW that had supported male victims whose POI was on the DVEM program. In addition to supporting victims who fit eligibility criteria, staff had supported between one and six victims whose POIs were involved in the DVEM program since the commencement of the program in November 2017. Supported victims included a mix of those who consented to, and were issued with a matched EM device, as well as those who did not carry a matched EM device either due to ineligibility, non-consent or unavailability of a device.
The demographic characteristics of the six victims who participated in interviews is available in Table 1. Victims had carried their devices for 4 months. The mean duration of carrying an EM device by POIs on the program is 84 days (median 80 days; IQR 30–122) (Hwang et al., 2021). All victims were female, most were born in Australia and one third were of Indigenous (Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander) decent. Half of victims had not completed secondary education, and two thirds resided in areas that are comparatively disadvantaged in terms of socioeconomic status.
Demographic Characteristics of Victims Who Participated in Interviews (N = 6).
Challenges for Victim Recruitment and Nature of Victim Support Provided
Staff were asked to describe how many victims they had ever supported, the nature of the support they offered and perceived reasons for low victim recruitment for the present study. Most support was provided during an initial period where POIs were being released from prison and ordered to the DVEM program. Activities undertaken during this initial period included notifying the client of the POI’s imminent release, introducing the client to the DVEM program and completing associated paperwork, referring the client to appropriate services and safety planning. Of these, safety planning was described as the primary activity.
Following this initial period, staff had varying degrees of contact with clients. Most reported periodically “checking in” with clients, whilst others only maintained contact in specific circumstances. These circumstances included supporting clients if a breach occurred, assisting clients make appropriate variations to the AVOs, and referring clients to appropriate services for housing or counseling.
“It’s intensive to start and get it all set up and kicking along.”
“. . .from the initial contact it can be. . . daily for the first few weeks. . . and it can taper down to once or twice a week. . .. After a couple of months it could turn into once a week to once a fortnight”
“. . .we would check in periodically and, and you know, they would know that they can contact us, and all that sort of stuff.”
The nature of support provided to clients by staff was predominantly over the phone. Instances of in-person contact were only reported where picking up or dropping off a matched device was involved. In some cases, contact was lost with the client due to a change in phone number or the client no longer wanting to engage with the service.
Victims also expressed having had varying levels of contact with victim support services, from “a few times face to face,” to several calls a week. Victims primarily reported being engaged with the support service early on to engage in safety planning, and processes related to obtaining a matched device. Victims expressed satisfaction with the support they received regarding the program.
“So, like the safe, the person would call me, cos I know I had a person call me every week. They just asked if I was safe, if I was well, if the device is working properly. Stuff like that. I was very satisfied.”
“Well like quite a lot, like, because him being on the run worried me quite a lot. See how I was. So I’d say probably like twice a week.”
Further investigation was also undertaken in response to the smaller than expected number of victims who were able to be recruited for the study. Staff were asked regarding their perception of the challenges in recruiting victims for the present study. Staff were supportive of the interviews. However, they described sometimes being hesitant to offer the interview to victims, due to concerns for the mental wellbeing, or “re-traumatization,” of victims who are in a vulnerable state.
“[The victim has] got a lot of mental health issues, and just even the call exacerbated all of that, and I felt like she would not be suitable to speak to about it. Just because of her own issues and her very long history of DV”
Staff also felt victims wanted to move on from the event, and that referring victims to the interviews would be unhelpful in doing so.
“But sometimes I feel like, for some of my clients, it was a little bit like not re-traumatising, but potentially re-hashing an aspect of their lives that they maybe considered to be done, or dealt with. So yeah, there was that potential to sort of have to maybe talk about things that they’ve filed away as dealt with.”
In some cases, support services staff had lost contact with victims. Some staff also discussed being time poor and therefore unable to prioritize referrals in light of other tasks.
Themes
The views expressed by victims and victim support services staff were highly complementary. Seven common themes were identified across both victim and staff interviews. Figure 1 presents a schematic diagram of the themes and subthemes present.
Safety and validation: General enthusiasm for the introduction of the program
Most victims reported feeling positive and excited about the POI being placed on the program. Support staff also reported a positive response to the program when it was first introduced to victims. Victims were reportedly “pleased” about the program. Their enthusiasm was commonly described as being due to the additional safety or security participants thought that the program would provide.
“They thought the program was brilliant in terms of adding extra protection. . .” [staff]
“She was quite pleased that it existed and gave her another level of security.” [staff]
Victims specifically described that the program assuaged some of the fear associated with the impending release of the POI.
“I was really ecstatic because I was terrified of him being let loose and me not knowing, and me having any protection, etcetera. . .” [victim]
One victim and several staff expressed that the program provided assurance that the victims’ fears were validated, and their safety valued.
“[The program implies a] Government response that we actually need to protect you. . . supporting the [victims] to feel safe and validating their fears.” [staff] “[The victim] just felt like she’d been forgotten by the system, so when she got on the [DVEM program] that sort of validated their experience in some respects.” [staff]
Despite a generally positive response to the program, one victim did not express enthusiasm toward the program, because her associated POI had a history of being placed on the program only to cut their device off.
“I felt, a bit up and down about it, given the fact this is his fifth time on it. Last year he cut it off and went to, um, on the run as you’d say, from the police. So I was a bit on edge about that, and it took them six weeks to find him, and they finally found him and then they gave him another chance.” [victim]
Further, three staff spoke of victims who intended to re-establish a relationship with the POI and where therefore largely unmoved by the introduction of the program.
“I had one client who was concerned about whether she could get back with him under the program.” [staff] “[The victim] said [the POI] had done his time and that was it. . . ultimately she’s back with him now” [staff]
Initial Anxiety
The program also caused some initial anxiety and confusion in victims. Half of the staff sample reported that their clients had voiced concerns about whether the program would inadvertently reveal their location to the POI.
“The client was concerned that he would find out where she lived. Because of the radius where he wasn’t allowed to go.” [staff]
Similar concerns discouraged victims from consenting to carry a matched monitoring device. Whilst all interviewed victims who were eligible for a matched device consented to one, staff were able to give their views on those victims who chose not to carry a device. For these victims, reasons for not wanting a matched device included that the POI would find out where the victim lived, invasion of privacy, and anxiety related to carrying and being responsible for a device.
“[the victim] declined anything because she had moved out of the area and didn’t want to go through the process of having their new area be um, be known to the POI as an exclusion zone.” [staff] “[The victim said], “I don’t want to be monitored, I don’t want people to watch where I’m going, and know where I’m going”.” [staff] “The responsibility of having to monitor the device, keep it charged, it actually created a level of anxiety around watching the device all the time. Is it going to be triggered?. . . Sort of that constant, almost like looking out of the window all the time, waiting for something to happen.” [staff]
Minimal intrusion on daily life
Overall, participants reported that involvement in the program created minimal intrusion in their daily life, including for those who chose to carry a matched device. Victims described sometimes having to explain the device to others, but this was not too difficult or uncomfortable.
“Um, it was different. Like, my friends, a couple of my friends saw it and they didn’t know what it was, and I explained it to them, and yeah it was fine. They said they, it’s a different thing, but as long as it made me feel safe, then yeah, they were fine.” [victim] “It doesn’t bother me. Like I’m not embarrassed or anything, but I do say [to others] ‘look, if anything happens I’ve got this.’” [victim]
The only reported issues related to the inconvenience of keeping the device charged.
“I have to charge it, Yeah, cos it doesn’t stay charged very long. That was the inconvenient part.” [victim] “The only thing I’d say is that the battery life. It’s pretty poor, I did, I do find that it runs out, like sometimes I’ve had to go into the city to the dental hospital or something, and I usually, because it runs out and I can’t really carry anything to recharge” [victim]
Victims, including those who did not carry a matched device, commonly reported having some correspondence with police while the POI was being monitored. This was most commonly about a breach of exclusion zones by the POI. Such calls were not described as intrusive, rather provided confidence in the technology.
“If there was something wrong, where if [the POI would] come into my zone, or any like place where I was, then I would get notified, which was really helpful. . . A couple of times it went off because [the POI] tried coming into [the exclusion zone], but they stopped her, which was good.” [victim]
Psychological relief and feelings of safety
Most described a sense of safety, and relatedly the psychological relief and confidence that EM provided for victims. Victims expressed feelings of security knowing that the POI’s whereabouts were being monitored by police.
“Yeah. It just felt like I could relax a little bit. Cos, not knowing where that person is, is really the worry. Like, knowing where, and if I knew where she was and she can’t approach, it’s a safer feeling.” [victim] “[Victims] felt that it was ah, it was um, very large security blanket for them. It gave them a comfort to know that they were being watched all of the time.” [staff]
Feelings of safety were the main reason victims expressed a desire to carry a matched device. These feelings of safety extended to the safety of victims’ children and new partners.
“. . .she was very concerned about her partner and the children. So. . . it gave her a sense that she would be able to feel a bit more safer. And her children and her new partner would be able to feel safer.” [staff] “I felt more confident to like, if I go out with my daughter and her children or something, having [a device] on me made me feel a lot safer” [victim]
In some cases, victims particularly welcomed the sense of safety provided by the program due to characteristics of the POI such as them having a history of repeated offending and/or threats made to the victim about contacting them after their release.
“I feel good because, as I said, he’s breached the AVOs and he keeps reoffending. So, it’s better for the department to know where he is and what he’s doing.” [victim]
Freedom to engage in daily activities
A commonly expressed benefit of the EM program, regardless of carrying a matched device, was the confidence and freedom to engage in daily activities. One victim expressed that this freedom allowed her to continue her lifestyle that she had established while the POI was in prison.
The most significant, positive impact on victims’ daily lives was on their relationships and social participation. Victims expressed that the program allowed and motivated them to increase their social participation with more confidence and peace of mind.
“It’s had a big impact cos it’s given me more freedom to go out and not be so scared, and I could, I could do a lot more with having that, cos I wasn’t so worried about where he was. Before I was, so I kind of lived in this little bubble.” [victim] “Before [the program], if nobody was around, I wouldn’t go out the front. I wouldn’t go and put the garbage out, I wouldn’t do anything. I do have a dog, unless I put her on a chain and walk outside with her, um, yeah. I was paranoid about even going out the back yard.” [victim]
A number of staff and victims also reported that the program had a positive impact on employment, allowing them to work in areas that would otherwise pose safety concerns.
“Yep, definitely impacted on their employment. So they were more able to be involved in the workforce because they had the monitoring. One woman, I think she was able to function a little bit easier in regards to attending work, and feeling safe there, so we had the safety plan covering her work as well. So, she definitely, yeah, was able to participate more fully in her work.” [staff] “I could go out and be more social, and actually want to go and have a job and go out.” [victim]
Post-EM concerns of safety
Victims’ reported feelings of safety appeared to increase during the POIs’ time on the program, then decreased after they exited the program, such that victims were left feeling on average more unsafe after the POI’s exit than prior to the program (Figures 2 and 3). This is an expected finding, given POIs were in custody prior to being on the program, versus being in the community after the program. Whether these differences are statistically different were not examined due to the small sample size.
Victims’ feelings of safety at home prior to, during and after DVEM.
Victims’ feelings of safety in their local area prior to, during and after DVEM.
These apparent trends in feelings of safety were reflected in victims’ expressed concerns for their safety after the program. Relatedly, victims often suggested that the POI should be electronically monitored for longer periods, and/or for some form of surveillance of the POI to continue beyond the program.
“Ah, I don’t feel safe now. Cos I don’t know where [the POI] is, and now I know she can come back.” [victim] “If it could work longer. . . I think that like after the perpetrators are finished their parole or whatever they’re on, it would be nice if they, in my fantasy, they could keep it on forever. It’s something I feel that you can’t just take off somebody because that’s what they’re waiting for, and that’s when the trouble starts. You know? They’ll think they’re free to do whatever.” [victim]
Some victims described the need for a sufficient transitional period toward the end of the POI’s monitoring, to allow the victim sufficient time and emotional resources to move away to safety before the POI is released.
“It should be run longer. . . Like, the thing is, because some people when they become like, I’m feeling that I’m getting better, but when people are traumatised a lot they can’t, they don’t have time in their mind to organise like getting away, or like packing up and moving, or seeking support. Sometimes they’re so traumatised, they can’t do these things immediately like people expect.” [victim]
An effective deterrent for most, but not for all
Victims and support staff were asked about the perceived impact of EM on reoffending. All believed that the program provided a strong and immediate deterrent for the POI. Victims and staff believed that EM increased the likelihood of being caught for a breach and that it provided evidence of this breach.
“I think it’s made it less likely of him to contact me. Because he knows he’s being tracked, and no matter what, he can’t get away with breaching.” [victim] “I think it deters breaching of the AVOs, so it takes away that immediate sort of response to breach the AVO.” [victim] “It is effective because it gives an obvious and immediate consequence. They know they’re going back to prison” [staff]
In particular, several victims specified their associated POI had a history of breaching AVOs, until they were placed on the DVEM program, after which no breaches occurred.
“Yeah, I felt like, a lot safer, and protected, and. . . before I felt like the police had let me down and that. . . While on bail he would still break all the conditions, and that. And this time I feel like because of the monitor he hasn’t been able to do that.” [victim] “I’ve had a couple of AVOs in place with that person and that didn’t stop, and then once the monitoring came in, that kind of stopped her doing anything.” [victim]
Several victims and staff expressed that the EM would not be effective at deterring all POIs, all of the time. That is, POIs who had characteristics such as impulsivity or severe mental illness, those who may be under the influence of substances, or with minimal regard for the law, would not necessarily be deterred.
“Perpetrators, at least they know that there’s some consequence to their actions so I’m guessing it weeds out the ones that are just you know, can be deterred by it, but there are obviously ones that are psychotic and they don’t care.” [victim] “He’s unpredictable. It’s like I’m sitting by the phone waiting for them to call to say he’s cut it off again.” [victim] “I think that realistically there’s people out there that regardless of any kind of electronic device, if they’ve got it in their head that they want to do something, or are under the influence [of drugs], that they’re going to do it regardless of whether they have a device” [staff]
Discussion
Overall, victims and support staff expressed a general sense of positivity and enthusiasm regarding the DVEM program. As depicted in Figure 1, experiences could mainly be considered positive. The main defining experience of the DVEM program for victims was in improved feelings of safety during the program and increased autonomy and confidence in going about their daily activities. The key themes in the present study are consistent with similar studies from the United States (Erez & Ibarra, 2007; Erez et al., 2012).
Bilateral EM programs have been favorably discussed as being a victim-centric approach to crime prevention, giving more active consideration of the victim’s concerns and interests throughout the program practices (Erez & Ibarra, 2007; Garland, 2001). The present findings support the notion that victims experience the intended benefits and purposes of such victim-centric practices offered by the DVEM program. However, these were not necessarily a result of the bilateral nature of the program. That is, the experiences of the victims tended to relate more broadly to the POI being electronically monitored, rather than the benefit of having a bilateral device of their own.
The program created opportunities for victims to interact with program personnel, which may improve their feelings of confidence and empowerment (Erez & Ibarra, 2007). In this study, feelings of safety that victims experienced did not only result from an actual lack of POI breaches or the EM technology per se but were felt more widely via the involvement of different stakeholders, and in the introduction of the program itself. Victims reported that the introduction of the program provided a validation of their fears and need for support. This is similar to findings from the United States that suggest victims valued the services and support of police and advocates (Erez et al., 2012).
Also expressed was improved autonomy and confidence to participate in daily activities such as employment, education, and social activities. Allowing victims to continue everyday life in their existing environment has been argued as an important shift away from previous discourses where women were often displaced to shelters (Erez & Ibarra, 2007). Feelings of safety provided by the POI being monitored allowed the victim to continue with aspects of their lives that they had established while the POI was still in prison. However, the findings should not be used to advocate for EM technologies as a substitute for support measures such as shelters. DV is a complex social problem involving individuals with complex needs and is likely to require substantial investments across multiple support and prevention domains.
An important finding is victim safety concerns in the post-EM period. Similar findings have been recorded for victims participating in EM for DV programs in the United States, where victims became attached to the protections offered by EM programs and expressed anxiety for the impending end of the POI’s EM order (Erez & Ibarra, 2007). It is also important for victims to be adequately informed and supported during this period. Victims may need a sufficient transition period in which to consider adjustments to living or work arrangements, and for support services to assist in accessing relevant supports. Ongoing communication regarding the POI’s status, especially where early exit from the program may be granted, should be considered if the victim expresses a need for this.
There is also a need to focus specifically on victims whose associated POI may not necessarily be deterred by EM. Victims and victim support staff described that for POIs of certain personality traits, and those with complex mental health needs would likely not be deterred by the device. Whilst courts and corrections authorities determine the suitability of a POI for the program based on defined eligibility criteria, it may be valuable to also consult the victims, and/or support services in an appropriately sensitive way, in making such decisions. In addition, both corrective services staff to whom the POI was known in prison, and victim support services may be able to provide further insight into aspects of the POI’s character, mental health and history with the victim that may make them more or less likely to be deterred by the use of EM.
Limitations and Further Work
The present study was limited by its small sample size, with six victims participating in interviews. Overall, only 12 expressions of interest for interviews were received over an 8-month period. Only six of these 12 referred victims were contactable and completed the interview. These findings suggest the need for future studies to consider when and how recruitment of victims for such studies may be undertaken sensitively and respectfully to maximize the participation of a representative sample. Further, conclusions regarding the effects of carrying a bilateral device are limited to this small sample size.
Relatedly, those who agreed to participate in interviews may have better represented those victims who maintained regular contact with the support service and who felt relatively mentally and emotionally prepared to speak with the researchers about their experiences. Given this, there was strong complementarity between victim and staff-reported experiences of the program, and thematic saturation was achieved quickly and easily. Further, the emergent themes were similar to previous United States studies (Erez & Ibarra, 2007; Erez et al., 2012). We were also able to report the diverse experiences of both victims who did and did not carry a matched device. The present study provides a starting point for understanding victim experiences of a bilateral EM program in the absence of other studies on this population in Australia.
No male victims were recruited to the present study. This is likely reflective of the low number of male victims who were involved in the EM program. Male victims represented 5.7% (n = 7) of victims referred to victim support services during the 12-month period within which the present study recruitment occurred. This is likely due to several factors, including a lower prevalence of men who experience domestic and family violence compared to women (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2019), and men who experience family or domestic violence generally being less likely than women to engage in help seeking behaviors, due to fear of disclosure, challenge to masculinity, diminished confidence, and perception and experiences of services (Burrowes & Horvath, 2013). However, we were able to recruit one of two staff who had supported male victims during this period, to participate in the present study. Given the differences expected in male and female experiences of family and domestic violence, it would be important for future work to focus more specifically on male victims to gain a more representative and complete understanding of victim experiences of the program.
In moving forward, further study regarding the specific differences in experiences between those victims who did and did not receive matched devices may be helpful for decisions regarding the availability of devices and prioritization for receipt of a device. The additional consideration of quantitative data regarding trajectories in victims’ housing, employment, health and wellbeing during and after EM of the POI can also provide further quantification of the impact of program participation on victims. Finally, future research on EM technology for DV should consider these findings in light of additional studies reporting the POIs’ experiences of the program also (see Hwang et al., 2021).
Conclusions
The present study is the first to qualitatively explore the experiences of victims of domestic violence whose associated POIs are ordered to post-prison EM programs in Australia. Key findings included general enthusiasm toward the program, as well as heightened feelings of safety which allowed victims confidence and autonomy in their social activities and community participation. The findings reveal important considerations for ensuring post-EM safety of victims. Further quantitative work with a larger sample of both male and female victims may strengthen conclusions regarding effectiveness and extent of the impact of EM on victims’ lives.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the valuable contribution of the men who participated in the present interviews, as well as the support of key stakeholders of the New South Wales DVEM program.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the NSW Department of Communities and Justice, Justice, Strategy and Policy Branch (grant no. RG181313).
