Occupational Stress Associated With Technological Diversion Among Pretrial Services Officers: A Qualitative Case Study of GPS Supervision for Intimate Partner and Domestic Violence Cases

Abstract

The application of global positioning system (GPS) technology as a pretrial diversion mechanism to monitor intimate partner and domestic violence (IPV/DV) cases has become increasingly common. As more jurisdictions implement GPS technology, there is a need to understand the workplace experiences of community corrections officers with this nascent supervision strategy. This qualitative case study draws upon the experiences gleaned from in-depth interviews with all the pretrial officers assigned to technology caseloads (n = 8) in a single jurisdiction to explore prevailing occupational stress themes associated with GPS supervision for IPV/DV cases as a diversion from pretrial detention. The results reinforce and extend a range of well-established stressors in the extant literature related to pretrial officers managing a GPS caseload of IPV/DV defendants. The findings highlight that pretrial officers using GPS technology are expected to serve in other unique roles (e.g., critical educator, software engineer, data collection specialist, communication expert, and victim advocate) in the course of their duties that were unanticipated sources of occupational stress. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Keywords

GPS supervision stress pretrial diversion intimate partner violence domestic violence

Introduction

The field of community corrections is rife with occupational stress (Lewis et al., 2013; Mack & Rhineberger-Dunn, 2021; Norman & Ricciardelli, 2022; Rhineberger-Dunn & Mack, 2019). Occupational stress generally refers to reactions that disrupt psychological, physical, or behavioral conditions in response to acute or chronic stimuli in the workplace (Beehr, 1995; Beehr & Newman, 1978). Community corrections professionals manage a range of work-related stressors, such as large general or specialized caseloads (Gayman et al., 2018; Lewis et al., 2013), organizational conditions perceived as hostile (Mack & Rhineberger-Dunn, 2021; Slate et al., 2003), and a lack of job training and resources (Pitts, 2007; Rhineberger-Dunn et al., 2017). On-the-job safety concerns and unmet role expectations also contribute to higher levels of occupational stress and turnover among community corrections staff (Lowry, 2000; Rhineberger-Dunn & Mack, 2019, 2020).

Occupational stress may be amplified within community corrections due to the evolving nature of the field to adopt technology to supervise clients who would have been incarcerated in the absence of technology. For example, the increasing percentage of justice-involved populations under global positioning system (GPS) supervision since the late 1990s (Erez et al., 2013) may exacerbate already high levels of stress experienced by community corrections professionals. Broadly speaking, GPS supervision programs track defendant movement and utilize exclusion zone configurations surrounding a victim’s location. When a defendant enters an exclusion zone, community corrections professionals are alerted and must diagnose the violation in terms of severity and respond appropriately. Community corrections personnel manage GPS alerts as they progress in varying ways according to policy and practice (e.g., victim notifications). Indeed, exclusion zone violations may be intentional or unintentional (e.g., traveling on a major roadway) and defendants may subvert GPS devices on purpose or on accident (e.g., low battery alerts). A community corrections officer must discern between these low- and high-priority alerts and events as quickly as possible while continuing to monitor the defendant’s location. The technological challenges and dynamic responses to alert notifications and affiliated events associated with GPS supervision are prevalent (Carter & Grommon, 2016; Erez et al., 2013; Grommon et al., 2017); thus, utilizing this form of monitoring system with certain populations may compound stress that already accompanies community corrections.

GPS supervision has been applied to defendants awaiting the resolution of intimate partner and domestic violence (IPV/DV) cases. The high rate of IPV/DV in the United States is well-established (Wojcik et al., 2021; Zeoli & Paruk, 2020). Millions of women (30 million or about one in four) and men (12 million or nearly one in 10) have reported victimization by an intimate partner and some form of IPV-related impact during their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). The use of pretrial GPS supervision in IPV/DV cases both follows the spirit of diversion and deviates from traditional conceptualizations of diversion (Ibarra & Erez, 2005). Regarding the former, the goals of pretrial services programs are to maximize release from custody, court appearances, and public safety (Bechtel et al., 2017; Jones, 2013; Stevenson & Mayson, 2017). Yet, pretrial GPS supervision—an alternative to pretrial detention—is costly and may still produce harms similar to those experienced by defendants sitting in jail during the pretrial period, such as curtailing the presumption of innocence, housing instability, and job insecurity (Eife, 2022; Eife & Kirk, 2021; Holsinger & Holsinger, 2018; Lowder et al., 2021; Scott-Hayward & Fradella, 2019; St. Louis, 2022). Regarding the latter, pretrial GPS supervision is used to increase surveillance and bolster mandatory protection orders, which are a ubiquitous strategy by the judiciary intended to decrease the likelihood of repeat victimization during pretrial processing (Erez et al., 2012, 2013; Ibarra, 2005; Ibarra & Erez, 2005; Ibarra et al., 2014; Logan & Walker, 2009). The reach and stipulations of pretrial GPS supervision, however, extend beyond defendants. Pretrial GPS supervision will subject family members and victims to surveillance and restrictions (Eife, 2022; Ibarra & Erez, 2005), such as fear of harm arising from the disparities between surveillance expectations and an agency’s policies and procedures (Ibarra et al., 2023).

Maximizing the plausible diversionary benefits of GPS technology requires community corrections officers to navigate unique circumstances. While there is a growing body of literature on the effect of pretrial GPS supervision for IPV/DV cases (see, for example, Carter & Grommon, 2016; Erez et al., 2012, 2013; Grommon et al., 2017; Gur et al., 2016; Ibarra & Erez, 2005; Ibarra et al., 2014), the range and nuance of stressors that community corrections professionals experience with pretrial GPS supervision represents an underdeveloped research area. The growth of pretrial service programs coupled with the pace of technological changes in GPS necessitates urgent examination of the experiences and staffing considerations of community corrections agencies using this technology.

Accordingly, this study expands upon the occupational stress framework and the GPS technology work of others (see, for example, Erez et al., 2012, 2013; Gur et al., 2016; Ibarra, 2005; Ibarra & Erez, 2005; Ibarra et al., 2014) by examining the experiences of community corrections officers who monitor IPV/DV defendants with GPS as a diversion from pretrial detention. Drawing on data from a mixed-methods case study of one jurisdiction, we present in-depth interview findings to explore occupational stress among a sample of eight pretrial officers managing caseloads with technology. Our analyses were guided by the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What do pretrial officers perceive about using GPS technology to supervise IPV/DV defendants?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are the efforts and emotional burdens on pretrial officers associated with the use of GPS technology for pretrial supervision of IPV/DV defendants?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): What lessons learned should be communicated to other jurisdictions seeking to develop or expand a pretrial GPS supervision program for IPV/DV defendants?

Methods

Study Context

A single city-county municipality of approximately 3 million people in the western region of the United States with a pretrial services division in its community corrections department served as the study site. During the site selection phase, we worked with subject matter experts and professional organizations affiliated with the National Institute of Justice to generate a sampling frame of potential partners. Eligibility criteria included substantial experience monitoring IPV/DV defendants with GPS technology, an average of at least 300 IPV/DV defendants under pretrial supervision per year, and accessible data systems in place to record and monitor performance. Among five eligible jurisdictions, the selected study site had over a decade of experience utilizing GPS technology and discharged approximately 400 pretrial defendants on GPS supervision for IPV/DV offenses per year at the time of data collection.

Pretrial orders to GPS supervision at the study site were guided by two risk assessments. One assessment was designed to estimate the risk of general pretrial misconduct, and the other was specific to IPV/DV offenses. Pretrial officers use the risk assessment scores in conjunction with a locally established risk matrix tool to make pretrial supervision recommendations to the courtroom workgroup. Across an 18-month period, just over three-fourths (76%) of defendants were ordered to the recommendations made by pretrial services (Grommon & Carter, 2015).

If GPS supervision conditions are ordered as a condition of bond or as an alternative to a monetary bond for an IPV/DV defendant, pretrial officers equip defendants with a one-piece GPS ankle unit. The device captures latitude and longitude information, speed and direction of travel, and timestamp records. GPS data are collected every minute when a defendant adheres to GPS conditions and every 15 seconds when a defendant does not adhere to GPS conditions. GPS data are sent to a centralized monitoring center and the supervising pretrial officer through work-issued cell phones and a secure online platform.

As part of the study site’s active monitoring plan, IPV/DV defendants are ordered to avoid predetermined exclusion zones that are identified in collaboration with victims. The jurisdiction specifies two exclusion zones per predetermined location. Outer exclusion zones represent a 1,000-foot radius surrounding a place where a victim is likely to be found (e.g., home, work, children’s school). A 300-foot radius inner zone (i.e., the inner-most or center area of an outer zone) corresponds directly to the terms of a protection order requiring a defendant to maintain 100 yards distance from the victim. In the event of an exclusion zone violation, pretrial officers diagnose whether the violation appears to be unintentional or intentional and act according to local policy and practice. In instances of an outer exclusion zone violation, defendants are contacted by their pretrial services officer and instructed to leave the area. Pretrial services officers also instruct defendants to leave the area for inner zone violations. In addition, officers immediately notify victims, victim advocates within the prosecutor’s office, and local law enforcement when defendants enter and remain within the perimeter of the inner exclusion zone. In these instances, victims are asked to follow their pre-developed safety plan. Law enforcement officers are asked to complete a victim welfare check. Segmented in these ways, local policy and practice require pretrial services officers to provide more intensive supervision during an outer exclusion zone violation while inner inclusion zone violations necessitate the resolution of a plausible public safety incident (Grommon & Carter, 2015).

Data

The current inquiry focuses on qualitative data gathered as part of a mixed-methods case study examining the use of pretrial GPS supervision for IPV/DV cases (Grommon & Carter, 2015). All pretrial officers managing technology caseloads (i.e., a form of electronic monitoring assigned to defendants, such as GPS, radio frequency, or alcohol monitoring) were interviewed by the research team across a 4-day site visit. Two members of the research team administered all the interviews. One member was responsible for leading the interview, while the second was present to deliver unstructured probes and take shorthand notes. A semi-structured interview protocol was designed to elicit rich accounts relating to the pretrial officers’ experiences of using GPS. Follow-up probes were used during the interviews to either clarify a concept or obtain a more robust understanding of the context and circumstances surrounding GPS supervision. While guided by a semi-structured interview protocol, the officers’ conversations on the use of GPS supervision to monitor IPV/DV defendants flowed organically rather than the researchers forcing the dialogue to conform within an a priori theoretical literature. This approach allowed the research team to examine a range of experiences from the pretrial officers with openness and flexibility. Interviews were audio recorded, lasted between 1 and 2 hours, and transcribed verbatim. Participation in the interviews was voluntary, and the pretrial officers were assured strict confidentiality. Pseudonyms were used in the current study to highlight key findings. All study protocols were approved by an Institutional Review Board.

Sample

Pretrial officers in the community corrections department at the time of the site visit were assigned to a technology caseload or non-technology caseload (i.e., no form of electronic supervision assigned to defendants). The research team interviewed all pretrial officers assigned to technology caseloads (n = 7). None of the officers managing technology caseloads declined participation. An additional officer (n = 1) served in a supervisory capacity for both technology and non-technology defendants and participated in the interviews. Although the small sample size (total N = 8) is a limitation of this study, there is subjectivity around the number of cases to achieve data saturation (Fusch & Ness, 2015) with ongoing conversations concerning necessary sample size (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013). Data saturation can be achieved with as few as six interviews (Guest et al., 2006). All of the pretrial officers were female and had been employed by the department for an average of 6 years. Across officers, the average self-reported caseload size was 95 defendants. Interviews were administered at a time when managers were working to restructure case allocations and hire additional officers to help offset large caseloads.

Thematic Analysis

We used thematic analysis to develop themes from the transcriptions of the interviews with pretrial officers (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022). From the perspective of a deductive approach, we identified the most prevailing themes affiliated with occupational stress. The Beehr–Newman occupational stress framework provides a valuable perspective for understanding and conceptualizing stress in the workplace. Under this model, personal factors (e.g., psychological characteristics) and environmental factors (e.g., role demands) influence the stress process and response (Beehr, 1995; Beehr & Newman, 1978). The Beehr–Newman framework differs from alternative occupational stress models with its focus on theoretical breadth and comprehensiveness, seeking to blend almost all theoretical perspectives related to the topic.

ATLAS.ti facilitated coding and analysis of the qualitative data, which was completed in multiple stages. First, we conducted open coding to independently review each transcript and identify provisional and emergent words or phrases (i.e., preliminary coding patterns). We then conferred to compare within and across transcripts to move from initial code to similar content based on commonality to form groups of related codes or themes. After forming these dominant themes, related codes were again synthesized and refined to ensure clear, yet distinct, themes that fully describe the data in terms of occupational stress associated with pretrial GPS supervision for IPV/DV cases. We presented the participants’ own words in quotes to capture their voice, which avoids distorting an experience (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022).

Positionality of the Researchers

Two faculty members conducted the interviews, both of whom were White men with doctoral degrees in criminology and criminal justice. These characteristics may have shaped the interview process given the demographics of the pretrial officers, particularly related to gender. During the interviews, both researchers disclosed their professional experience within the criminal-legal system and practiced flexible interviewing techniques, given the conversation occurred during business hours, fostering a conversational partnership between the researchers and pretrial officers (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). The first author is a cisgender White man who is an early career scholar focusing on behavioral health in the criminal-legal system, which likely influenced the interpretation of our results.

Findings

The thematic analysis of the interviews revealed three themes on occupational stress associated with the use of pretrial GPS supervision for IPV/DV cases. We found that GPS as a diversionary tool produces varying and complex experiences for pretrial officers.

Theme 1: The Magnification of Stress through the Management of IPV/DV Defendants with GPS Supervision—Monitoring high volumes of defendants is naturally time consuming and emotionally taxing; yet, stressors are amplified when coupled with balancing multiple time-sensitive responsibilities and constant interruptions associated with GPS technology.

Amplification of Workplace Stressors

High levels of stress were reported by pretrial officers due to GPS technology. Pretrial Officer 03 explained, “It [GPS] is the most intensive out of all of the [technology] workloads in my opinion. Specifically because of the amount of contacts you have to have with other pieces of the agency.” Similarly, Pretrial Officer 07 said, “It is stressful. GPS with the purposes we have made it to and the way we are responsible to reacting and the amount of caseloads we are carrying is completely . . . It will induce stress in a heartbeat.” In addition to simultaneously monitoring multiple non-adherent defendants with GPS, Pretrial Officer 05 described how a GPS caseload involves

a lot of minutia that we do that’s, you know, gathering stats. It would be nice to find a way for someone else to do that, so probation officers can concentrate on managing their clients and not entering 150 things into 150 databases so that they can have their stats.

The pretrial officers mentioned a constant balancing act between time-consuming—yet more mundane—work obligations connected to a technology caseload (e.g., collecting and synthesizing data produced by GPS software applications, preparing administrative reports, testifying under subpoena) and higher priority tasks (e.g., diagnosing exclusion zone violations).

Pretrial staff attributed defendant non-adherent behavior to time management issues and competing work responsibilities. Pretrial Officer 03 illustrated this point by stating,

I think that sometimes people [staff] get in such a rush and so busy to try to get a defendant in and out of the office that they don’t explain things a) in terms they [defendants] can understand sometimes and b) explain it [GPS technology] fully.

As a result, challenges with GPS compliance among defendants may be witnessed. For example, a low battery status with the GPS units represented one of the most common alert events at the study site. While low battery alerts can be the result of a defendant intentionally failing to charge the GPS unit battery, defendants may not be entirely to blame. Pretrial Officer 07 expressed that some staff haphazardly explain the technology to defendants, but efforts were underway at the study site to “streamline that and making sure everybody is instructing the clients the same way because not everybody does.”

Together, stressors internal to GPS supervision force pretrial services officers to prioritize the management, documentation, and resolution of alerts over the development of working relationships to assess and address defendants’ needs. These views led officers to conclude that it takes a special officer with a unique skillset to manage IPV/DV pretrial GPS cases. As Pretrial Officer 04 suggests, it is essential to “hire the right people. Because you need somebody who can work in a high stress environment and who can handle some of these defendants and cases and really honestly tough cases.”

In addition to discussions about caseload sizes being larger than normal and unsustainable, pretrial officers expressed frustration with the nature and volume of requests from external criminal-legal stakeholders involved in GPS supervision for IPV/DV cases, such as preparing protection orders, communicating violations, and sharing GPS data. As alluded to by Pretrial Officer 01,

We have [local law enforcement] officers who will call us and say “Can you let us know who was at this location six months ago?” . . . [or] you could have an officer call you and say “We need to execute a warrant on this guy and we need to get him so could you [use GPS to track him]?”

In these scenarios, the burdens are placed on pretrial officers who have responsibility over the management of GPS caseloads, while law enforcement officers receive informational benefits from pretrial staff who feel they receive little to no recognition.

Pretrial officers also expressed frustration with the local judiciary requesting, for example, the assistance of pretrial staff to populate court subpoenas to resolve open cases with the data gathered from GPS units and other forms of technology. Pretrial Officer 02 reported, “Sometimes I will get subpoenas for things that I have no idea why I was subpoenaed. Case in point, tomorrow’s [subpoena] . . . It took forever to get the defense attorney to share what he was looking for. Because all he did in his subpoena was say, ‘I want all of your charts/records/phone calls/blah blah blah between the first of the month and the last of the month.’ And then I am like, ‘Are you kidding me? That’s tons of information!’ and after about five phone calls to him to say, ‘I really need you to narrow this down in order for me to get to the heart of what you are asking for since you are asking me with only a week notice,’ he finally shared with me what it was he was looking for and then I could narrow it down and print it off really quick.”

Interestingly, another interviewee, Pretrial Officer 05 shared, “It seems like I have been subpoenaed more working here than any of the other places.” These requests from other criminal-legal stakeholders are time consuming for pretrial officers on technology caseloads who are balancing a variety of other case management demands. There was a perception among the pretrial officers that some of the responsibilities required of them by the criminal-legal system represent factors external to their job tasks or the mission of the pretrial services division.

Stress Responses

Due to the interactive nature of the GPS-based program coupled with typical case management demands and role responsibilities within the community corrections profession, there was a strong consensus among the interviewees that occupational stress is not only amplified in this environment but manifests into a variety of physical and psychological stress responses. As expressed by Pretrial Officer 08, the accumulation of responding to a variety of high and low priority GPS alerts, coupled with meeting defendants face-to-face to explain the technology and continually fielding external requests from other criminal-legal actors, leads to negative psychological outcomes:

I was getting burned out and I did have a massive breakdown a couple of weeks ago with [a colleague]. I was like, “This is ridiculous.” I was in my office crying and all of us have been in our offices crying up until recently. And yeah it was getting to the point where I told [the colleague], “I am to the point where if something happens to somebody, I don’t care because there is nothing I can do. I am so overworked.”

Furthermore, pretrial Officer 08 experienced

General departmental burnout. I think that . . . again nature of the beast. This is not easy work. You are going to be stressed out. It comes with the territory, but I think that it got to the point where we were like “Okay. It is what it is, but I don’t want to be here anymore. I don’t want to do this anymore. This is not okay. This is not functional for anybody.”

A stressful workplace requires staff to expend a significant amount of coping resources, which negatively affects job performance and contributes to burnout (Mack & Rhineberger-Dunn, 2021; Rhineberger-Dunn & Mack, 2020). An example of a collateral consequence that a high stress environment creates was detailed by Pretrial Officer 07,

I can’t afford to get emotionally involved with the pains of the victim and their traumas . . . I don’t even want to get into the defendants’ issues because I am 155 caseload. I mean, I would love to have time to hear them out and give them some advice, but I don’t have time. That is what it boils down to some days. And some days I have taken an hour of them just blurting it out and purging themselves and it is necessary. Sometimes I think that is what they need, and you can’t afford to do that even if you wanted to.

Beyond jaded feelings and a sense of detachment from the work, stress responses were also manifested in the pretrial officers’ personal time. This issue was reinforced when Pretrial Officer 07 stated,

I have been in the airport at 3 in the morning getting ready to get on a plane for vacation. I will hear an iPhone like the one we use for on call go off, and I swear I will just freeze . . . I detest my phone. This is my work phone. This is my personal phone. This [my work phone] gets put away as soon as I walk out of this building.

When asked to further elaborate on how technology caseloads interrupt work– and home–life balance, Pretrial Officer 07 admitted,

When you are on pretrial, you are on call all the time. When you walk in here, your shift starts and ends. If you are on call that night or that weekend, forget it. You are not off duty. You are that [a pretrial officer] every moment.

Overall, pretrial officers discussed significant workplace demands associated with the use of pretrial GPS supervision that amplify common stressors and anxieties within community corrections and create new impediments that affect job performance and work–life balance. At times, pretrial officers spoke more broadly to stressors associated with the management of large caseloads. However, pretrial officers identified juggling multiple time-sensitive work responsibilities (e.g., high-priority alert events) in GPS supervision and fielding frequent GPS data requests from other criminal-legal professionals as unique sources of occupational stress that are only experienced through the management of IPV/DV defendants with GPS supervision. These stressors magnify the—perhaps typical—experience of occupational stress within community corrections.

Theme 2: Adoption of Educator Role in the Absence of Consistent and Quality Training—Those who are involved with the indirect monitoring of pretrial IPV/DV defendants must be knowledgeable about the purpose and limitations of GPS supervision, and pretrial staff must receive consistent and quality training for GPS supervision.

Educating External Stakeholders

Another prominent stressor throughout pretrial officers’ accounts of managing IPV/DV caseloads with GPS supervision was education or the lack thereof within the criminal-legal system, particularly among the judiciary. The focus of pretrial GPS technology is to strengthen existing protection orders while providing additional benefits of defendant location monitoring. Yet, to achieve these benefits, pretrial officers felt they needed to routinely educate their professional peers in external agencies who were indirectly involved with the monitoring of pretrial defendants on GPS supervision. Educational activities were noted as being necessary for GPS supervision to be effective and to be applied appropriately. Pretrial Officer 01 emphasized

if there are other cities and counties looking at [implementing GPS technology to monitor IPV/DV defendants], they really, really have to do a good job at educating their judges and their DAs [on] how the technology works—what it does and does not do.

Pretrial Officer 07 said,

You have to educate from the judges all the way to the clerks in the court to the victim advocates to anyone and everyone involved, and it has to [be] parallel. It is so hard to have some people doing it this way and some people think it works this way. I think a lot of the issues that surface come from misinformation or just ignorance.

For pretrial officers, a baseline level of knowledge about GPS technology would be invaluable and would help to “right size” orders and mitigate the risk of net widening. It is not surprising the pretrial officers interviewed for this study mentioned that the criminal-legal stakeholders involved in the GPS supervision process should be competent in GPS technology’s aim and scope, as line level pretrial officers have raised concerns about the overuse of technology once these tools are adopted by local jurisdictions (Erez et al., 2012, 2013). Many pretrial officers recognized that the inherent risk of over-supervising defendants and ordering GPS supervision beyond intended target populations is exacerbated due to the lack of a common systems consensus on how the technology should be used. Pretrial Officer 02 explained,

When the process is not working, that is when you have judges who are like “Oh, you are here before me for this alleged crime, and because this is an assault, I am just going to go ahead and give you GPS.” Even though the assault claim may have been like a shove as opposed to, you know, I beat you with a bat or whatever the case may be.

Asked how this lack of shared knowledge impacts IPV/DV cases, Pretrial Officer 02 said,

For a long time, it was just kind of like “This is a DV charge. We are going to put you on GPS.” Even though it wasn’t appropriate because of what allegedly happened. This was not a physical violence issue. This was, you know, him sending her harassing emails, and GPS will not address that.

Pretrial Officer 01 expressed a similar frustration with the local judiciary erroneously placing defendants on GPS by stating, “I think that they [the judges] feel kind of like they are covering themselves by putting [defendants] on GPS even though this person shows low risk. You know, granted, you never really know prior non-reported domestic violence.”

Pretrial officers perceived that the judiciary ignored pretrial supervision recommendations and proceeded under their own discretion when ordering GPS supervision. That is, despite pretrial officers taking on the role of an educator as part of their GPS supervision job responsibility, such efforts did not appear to resonate with external criminal-legal partners. Pretrial Officer 06 remarked, “We—according to our [supervision matrix] grid—we think they should be on GPS and then maybe they [the judges] don’t.” Relatedly, pretrial officers did not understand why certain populations were being ordered to GPS supervision, particularly those cases that involve transient defendants and victims. As Pretrial Officers 08 and 07 noted, respectively

I don’t like to stack up things that are just going to continue to keep people in the system. That is not why I do this. Why I do this? So that stuff doesn’t happen. Yeah, especially if they [the judiciary] are not going to take our suggestions into consideration, then yeah, it is totally ridiculous to have somebody who is transient on for 7 months with an unknown victim—where the victim is transient too. Where is the justification for that?

Or it [the pretrial supervision recommendation] will be disregarded. I’ve seen several very low assessment scores and GPS, and I am thinking, really? Or just even the situation: two transients. Why are we putting them on GPS? Yeah, things like that.

Perceptions of pretrial supervision recommendations being unheard and ignored—perpetuating unjust judicial decisions—were prominent throughout the interviews and identified as a source of stress. These perceptions were undoubtedly cultivated from real cases and lived experiences of pretrial officers, as deviations between pretrial recommendations and pretrial conditions imposed by the judiciary can and do occur. Yet, as noted earlier, a vast majority of defendants were ordered to the recommendations made by the pretrial services division. Although judicial decisions did not unanimously follow pretrial services’ recommendations, the recommendations were being taken under advisement and routinely adopted. Nevertheless, pretrial officers’ recall of deviations from their recommendations may have become especially salient and influenced views on the legitimacy of judicial decision-making processes.

Receipt of Internal Education and Training

In line with external criminal-legal stakeholders being educated on GPS technology to reduce staff frustration, pretrial officers noted that training consistency and quality can reduce or cause occupational stress. Officers expressed a wide range of views on the training delivered by both the technology vendor and their agency. While Pretrial Officer 08 believed extensive training by the vendor on how to use the device hardware and software may not be necessary “because for our purposes what we have is sufficient,” other pretrial officers interviewed, including Pretrial Officer 08 contradictorily, expressed desire for more targeted training from the technology vendor (e.g., how to pull certain reports from the GPS software). Targeted training would minimize pretrial officers having responsibilities as technology engineers and help them more effectively communicate the benefits and limitations of the technology to all stakeholders.

Pretrial Officer 08 discussed how the lack of training received from the vendor leaves pretrial officers with “no idea the kind of reports that we can pull” to individualize and guide case management decisions. Furthermore, Pretrial Officer 01 believed that, with more training from the vendor, officers could learn to better navigate the GPS software which “would help us not have so many alerts . . . I think there is a lot in the technology that we could use but we don’t because we don’t have the training for it.” Although there was variability in the perceptions of on-site training frequency from the vendor, pretrial officers expressed satisfaction with how the technology vendor provided timely responses to their queries. Pretrial Officer 05 believed “the best training is always been from the technology vendor because they know their equipment.” Similarly, Pretrial Officer 02 said,

They [i.e., the technology vendor] provide a number of online trainings in regards to all the different things that the bracelet does as well as how their website works and how the interface works and things of that sort. And they have a pretty comprehensive help guide so you can easily find different terms you have never heard before.

Although there were mixed views on the frequency and the training delivered by the technology vendor, the training provided by the agency was consistently perceived to be inadequate or inconsistent. Pretrial Officer 04 shared,

They [agency administrators] have a committee that has come up with kind of like more of a process of how people get trained . . . But I would say our training is pretty, until we get this new committee out, I don’t think it’s very good.

For pretrial officers transferring over to GPS supervision, the onboarding training, including the management of high-and low-priority alerts, was described as informal and based on shadowing and ongoing conversations with coworkers. It appeared that, as detailed by Pretrial Officer 07, “shadowing and then getting thrown into the fire” was the de facto training approach. Relatedly, Pretrial Officer 08 indicated that “you kind of [learn] it [through] trial and error. And most of us are pretty fast learners.” Administrators were, as mentioned, in the process of revamping the training programs for pretrial officers assigned to technology caseloads during the time of data collection.

In summary, pretrial officers discussed occupational stress associated with judicial discretionary decisions during pretrial proceedings. This frustration was particularly concentrated on the perception that judges commonly ignored supervision recommendations from pretrial services and proceeded under their own discretion when assigning GPS technology as a diversion from pretrial detention. For effective GPS supervision of pretrial defendants, pretrial officers underscored the need for educational activities targeted at external criminal-legal stakeholders involved in pretrial supervision recommendations to maximize knowledge about the primary function of GPS technology. Furthermore, pretrial services officers indicated that internal education and training opportunities need to be applicable to job demands and routinely offered.

Theme 3: Managing Perceived Assurances of Victim Protection or Compliance—Although GPS is perceived to be an effective pretrial diversion tool for IPV/DV defendants, GPS technology does not protect IPV/DV victims and may cause a mismatch between pretrial officers’ actions (required by policy) and victims’ needs.

Management of Victim Protection Narrative

This theme builds on the aforementioned discrepancies in GPS technology education for criminal-legal stakeholders and the tension that surrounds GPS supervision as a diversionary strategy in lieu of pretrial detention. There was unanimous agreement among the pretrial officers that, despite inconsistencies in application by criminal-legal stakeholders, pretrial GPS supervision was an effective tool to monitor IPV/DV cases. By creating a perception that movements will be constantly tracked and reported, defendants will be less likely to contact victims and pretrial officers will be able to intervene in cases of potential repeat victimization. These capabilities are why Pretrial Officer 01 believed in using GPS supervision for IPV/DV defendants: GPS effectively

track[s] the defendant and [results in the supervising agency] know[ing] what they are doing. I think it also leaves [defendants] with the feeling of they are going to be watched and that they are being monitored by our agency. It does deter them.

Pretrial Officer 07 shared similar sentiments, GPS technology has a “completely deterrent purpose. This is just a tool. We are watching you.”

The deterrent value of pretrial GPS supervision counters narratives from criminal-legal stakeholders external to the supervising agency who viewed GPS supervision as a strategy to protect IPV/DV victims from defendants. Pretrial Officer 01 asserted the judiciary

believe[s] that because they [defendants] have GPS, they [defendants] are going to have absolute zero contact with the victim and that is not the case. And that the victim is going to be protected at all times and that is not the case either.

Similarly, Pretrial Officer 05 said,

It is not used for protecting. I mean, we go on and on and on about how it is not for protecting victims, but that is one of the weaknesses [of this type of supervision strategy]. On the other side, that is how even the court still says, “Well, we need to protect this victim. We need to put them on GPS.” It’s like, that is not what this is about.

Despite the supervising agency’s and local justice system’s mixed perceptions about the primary aim of pretrial GPS supervision for IPV/DV cases, pretrial officers managed caseloads in ways that aligned with a victim advocate orientation that prioritizes victim safety. In this way, pretrial GPS supervision is implicitly perceived to confer some protection to victims via deterrence mechanisms. Pretrial Officer 03 contacted victims “on all cases [with violations or unmonitored defendants]. If we cannot get a hold of a defendant, even on a low battery, I should be calling the victim. Because in my opinion, that is the purpose of the GPS.” Pretrial officers acknowledged feelings of stress that come from decisions to deliver timely notifications to victims and manage victim and defendant responses to notifications with local system resources:

If they [defendants] are hanging out in the area [exclusion zone] and they know that they are not supposed to be there, I will call the victim. I don’t care if it is in the inner zone or not. Because that just makes me nervous, especially if they are not supposed to be there. (Pretrial Officer 08)

If I cannot get a hold of the victim and he has not exited that area [exclusion zone] by then, I call local law enforcement and dispatch a welfare check. In that instance, they got there. It took them an hour to get there. Which unfortunately, even though we have done all we can do, we are then subject to the non-emergency dispatch and how long it takes them to get there. (Pretrial Officer 03)

You are waiting for this map to come up [on the computer to manage the exclusion zone violation and to determine if calling the victim is necessary], and I was just in agony. (Pretrial Officer 01)

Management of Victim Caseloads

A reality of delivering notifications is variability in victim receptivity to communication from pretrial officers. To make the most use of pretrial GPS supervision as a diversion strategy, victims must actively support pretrial officers’ case management efforts and subject themselves to surveillance (Ibarra & Erez, 2005). Pretrial officers explained that, in some cases, victims are receptive (i.e., answer the phone call) and appreciative of the notification that the defendant is unmonitored or is in violation of pretrial conditions. Yet, pretrial officers also discussed the fact that victims’ willingness to communicate with pretrial officers may be nonexistent or fluctuate depending on how long a defendant has been on GPS pretrial supervision and/or how many alert notifications the victim receives from pretrial officers. Indeed, Pretrial Officer 02 stated,

Some of them [victims] are very vocal to say, “Please stop calling me about this. I don’t care.” Some of them, they love knowing every single thing that is happening with the defendant. And then some of them, they might be compliant at the beginning because they like the information and then once they feel like they are overloaded, the stop answering their phones.

Pretrial Officer 02 went on to say,

There are some victims, they call us all the time and they’re like “I don’t care that so and so has a low battery. I only care if [they have] been unmonitored for a long period of time or if [they are] near my house. But if [they haven’t] charged, I don’t really need you to call me for that.”

According to the supervising agency policy and procedure, pretrial officers were required to contact victims for high-risk alerts, which included exclusion zone entry and unmonitored status. Although the victim may request no contact, pretrial staff must appropriately mediate these experiences while still following agency guidelines regardless of the victim’s wishes. Pretrial Officer 01 reinforced this idea by acknowledging that IPV/DV victims have said “‘Don’t call me if it is that kind of alert’. But we have to, so they stop answering their phone.”

Pretrial officers also manage strains associated with victim participation in the intake process. Pretrial officers discussed the challenges of collecting and updating relevant victim contact information, particularly when a large proportion of victims are perceived as lacking stable housing, employment, and income. Pretrial Officer 08 expressed how the lack of accurate victim information negates any diversionary or deterrent value of GPS supervision: “Like this victim information and keeping stuff updated . . . all that stuff. If we don’t have that stuff [contact information] then there is nothing we can do.” Other pretrial officers recalled rare cases where victims declined agency requests to support GPS supervision (e.g., providing limited or no contact information). In interpreting victim declinations, officers believed that victims may generally reconsider the formal prosecution of the original incident or may become increasingly more fearful of defendants’ behavior as cases work toward a resolution.

Together, pretrial officers were tasked with the responsibility of mediating victim preferences and frustrations, understanding local policy and working within it to maintain victim cooperation, and maximizing the diversionary value of GPS supervision as a deterrent. Furthermore, pretrial officers had to govern a deeply conflicted contradiction: they resisted giving assurances of protecting victims, while engaging in behaviors that aim to keep victims safe. The evolving dynamics and context involved with victim notification responsibilities and perceived roles as victim advocates, mediators, and case managers, coupled with variability in perceived purposes of GPS supervision, opens the door wider for experiences of stress among pretrial staff managing IPV/DV cases with GPS technology.

Discussion

Many studies examine occupational stress experienced by criminal-legal professionals and provide a clear explanation as to which job stressors are harmful to the well-being of both the individual and agency. Beyond the formative contributions of Erez, Ibarra, and colleagues (Erez et al., 2012, 2013; Gur et al., 2016; Ibarra, 2005; Ibarra & Erez, 2005; Ibarra et al., 2014), there is little scholarship that seeks to investigate occupational stress among community corrections professionals resulting from pretrial GPS supervision for IPV/DV cases. With the growing momentum toward the implementation of GPS supervision programs for IPV/DV defendants as a diversion from pretrial detention, community corrections professionals are gathering information to inform procurement decisions and develop best policy and practice. Against a backdrop of occupational stress, the current study attempts to fill a limited knowledge base on GPS supervision to monitor IPV/DV defendants.

Our findings identify a range of well-established stressors for pretrial officers managing a GPS caseload of IPV/DV defendants. GPS supervision exacerbates pre-existing levels of stress among officers within a community corrections setting. Caseload size determinations were particularly germane for the pretrial officers, given the large volume of alert notifications generated by defendants. This is but one of many responsibilities to be managed by pretrial officers. In contrast to the average self-reported caseload size of 95 defendants, pretrial officers believed a caseload size of 50 to 60 GPS defendants would be optimal. This optimal caseload is higher than those reported by other jurisdictions managing IPV/DV defendants with pretrial GPS supervision (pooled average of 44 cases; Erez et al., 2012). These smaller caseload sizes associated with technology or GPS supervision programs, compared with non-technology caseloads (pooled average of 92 cases; Erez et al., 2012), emphasize the distinct demands that staff associate with GPS supervision programs. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully consider current and anticipated caseload sizes before implementing a new GPS supervision program or making changes to an existing one. The broader body of evidence on the association between role overload, such as unsustainable caseload sizes, and occupational stress among criminal-legal employees remains strong (Lawson, 2022; Rhineberger-Dunn & Mack, 2019).

Consistent with prior findings (Erez et al., 2012, 2013; Ibarra et al., 2014), pretrial officers at the study site served in other unique capacities in the course of their duties that were sources of occupational stress and discontent. We extend existing findings on environmental factors of occupational stress by identifying the specific supplemental roles pretrial officers must take on: educators, technology engineers, data collection specialists, policy analysts, communication experts, victim advocates, and mediators. These new roles are not within the traditional focus of pretrial diversion, community corrections case management, or integrated orientations (DeMichele & Payne, 2018; Miller, 2015; Payne & DeMichele, 2011). For example, one prominent stressor connected to GPS supervision was educating criminal-legal professionals who are involved with the indirect monitoring of pretrial defendants on the misunderstandings, limitations, and purpose of GPS technology. To be an effective educator, pretrial officers are required to both know how the technology works (i.e., as a software engineer) and how the technology is limited (i.e., as a critical educator). Pretrial officers must also communicate these insights in a manner that is digestible to a variety of audiences who may or may not be familiar with the technology or associated policies. These demands must be met during business hours and drift into on-call responsibilities after business hours, days off work, and personal time.

The net-widening application of GPS technology as a new tool to monitor IPV/DV defendants frustrated pretrial officers. They viewed the judiciary as deviating from their pretrial supervision recommendations and applying the most restrictive supervision strategy available that, in combination, contributed to the over-supervision of defendants. Pretrial officers emphasized that educational deficiencies with GPS technology can hinder effective inter-agency communication and coordination among relevant stakeholders involved in the supervision of pretrial defendants (e.g., communicate the anticipated deterrence benefits that GPS supervision can provide or emphasize victim safety/security benefits). Unified efforts between all stakeholders involved in pretrial recommendations, orders, supervision, and enforcement may foster integration and coordinated responses within community-based IPV/DV programs and bolster realistic expectations of GPS technology (Erez et al., 2012). Internal to the pretrial services division, pretrial officers discussed aggravation with the relative lack of ongoing training on how to manage their caseloads and the unanticipated roles that come with a technology position. Indeed, prior studies found that community corrections professionals with better job training were less likely to report negative outcomes, such as burnout, unmet role expectations, and secondary trauma (Rhineberger-Dunn et al., 2016, 2017; Rhineberger-Dunn & Mack, 2019).

In line with educating the local justice system on the purpose and value of GPS supervision as a means to divert defendants from pretrial detention, pretrial officers claimed that there is a perception issue inherent in utilizing the technology. Because GPS devices allow for defendants to be monitored in near real-time, there is a misunderstanding among key stakeholders that GPS supervision protects IPV/DV victims from defendants. However, GPS does not provide physical protection to victims (Erez et al., 2013). While GPS may heighten victims’ feelings of safety, it does not provide a foolproof means of protection from defendants. Moreover, pretrial officers stressed the fact that GPS can only deter physical contact and is not equipped to deter contact via phone or internet. Jurisdictions should be aware of the benefits and limitations of GPS technology and its use in supervising IPV/DV defendants during pretrial proceedings. Communicating these factors to stakeholders is critical for jurisdictions that are considering the adoption of GPS devices to monitor IPV/DV defendants in lieu of detention.

Although pretrial officers understood and communicated that GPS technology does not protect IPV/DV victims, pretrial staff used bounded discretion to deter defendants and/or prevent additional harm to victims. Much of the discretion available to pretrial officers resides in the frequency and types of communication delivered to defendants, victims, victim advocates, law enforcement, and the broader criminal-legal system. Pretrial officers witnessed defendant reactions to the various communication levers they used to respond to alerts and discourage behaviors in near real-time. Pretrial officers must coordinate and rely on victims and law enforcement to make the deterrence mechanisms of GPS supervision work, and this is consistent with views of pretrial GPS supervision of IPV/DV defendants as victim-centric diversion strategy (Ibarra & Erez, 2005). Elaborating on this foundation, when pretrial officers receive an exclusion zone violation alert of a defendant that has entered a zone and is progressing toward an area where a victim may be located, it can engender a moment of intense stress. In such situations, pretrial officers must simultaneously attempt to contact the victim who may or may not want to be contacted, the defendant, and local law enforcement to conduct a welfare check on the victim. Without effective and timely communication between victims, defendants, and law enforcement, pretrial officers are often left helpless and are highly anxious regarding the victim’s safety while these high-priority events transpire in near-real time. At extremes, these accumulated experiences traumatize pretrial officers.

A few limitations must be noted. We used in-depth interviews from the qualitative prong of a larger project on the use of GPS pretrial supervision for IPV/DV cases. The larger project examined occupational stress as one domain among others, but we may not have captured the full slate of stressors that community corrections staff experience while managing pretrial GPS caseloads of IPV/DV defendants. It was also beyond the scope of the current study to examine the perspectives of other stakeholders on GPS technology (e.g., defendants, victims, victim advocates), and the experiences of the pretrial officers interviewed are not intended to be generalized to other jurisdictions utilizing GPS technology. Each jurisdiction will have its own vendor, policy, and organizational culture that will shape how GPS technology is integrated into routine practice (Erez et al., 2012, 2013). The epistemological underpinnings of qualitative research designs do not purport generalizability or breadth. Qualitative researchers focus on depth, generalizing to theory (not populations), and developing theoretical categories. Thus, the size of samples can be rather small to achieve the purpose of a qualitative inquiry (Ambert et al., 1995; Barbour, 2001). It is also important to highlight the uniqueness of the study context at the time the interviews were conducted when interpreting the study’s findings. Given large caseload sizes, the prevailing themes must be interpreted with this context in mind.

The results provide some support for policies and practices that establish and sustain local workgroups comprising various criminal-legal stakeholders such as pretrial services officers, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jail administrators, law enforcement officers, victim advocates, victims, and social service providers. These workgroups are responsible for developing a shared vision of pretrial operations and diversion strategies within their criminal-legal system. This infrastructure can help alleviate stressors and supplemental roles for pretrial services officers, while also facilitating the sharing of relevant information among criminal-legal stakeholders. This information can be used to educate colleagues about the use of GPS technology in pretrial supervision of IPV/DV cases. Furthermore, local pretrial services agencies may potentially mitigate occupational stressors through routine peer-led trainings or learning community sessions that allow pretrial officers to develop internal policy and procedures, share knowledge, review challenging cases, and practice the application of learned skills. These peer-to-peer learning environments may help to reinforce the organizational culture of an agency.

Further research is necessary to identify or delve into the workplace stressors that pretrial officers encounter while managing GPS caseloads of IPV/DV defendants. It will be crucial to assess whether the magnitude and consequences of these stressors are comparable with or distinct from those experienced by pretrial services officers—or more broadly community corrections professionals—managing other GPS caseloads and utilizing alternative forms of technology for diverting individuals from the carceral system. Examining the stability and fluctuations of workplace stressors in relation to caseload sizes and turnover of line and supervisory staff is essential for developing a comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to occupational stress among pretrial services officers who will be responsible for supervising diversion policy and practice. Future research using innovative quasi-experimental designs is needed to test explicit and implicit explanations offered by pretrial services officers to affect the occupational stress process. Additional research is also needed to expand the Beehr–Newman model of occupational stress or explore alternative occupational stress models that could provide more concise explanations than the current framework.

Conclusion

Our findings replicate and extend previous research on pretrial GPS supervision of IPV/DV defendants. The three themes that were gleaned from the current study underscore the need for community corrections agencies to address the contours of pretrial GPS supervision and continue to generate information on the costs and benefits of this technological approach as a strategy to divert defendants from pretrial detention. Indeed, the integration of pretrial GPS supervision introduces both well-established and new, unforeseen stressors for pretrial officers. Understanding the nuance of adopting GPS technology to monitor IPV/DV defendants is critical because it appears to be connected to the well-being and role expectations of staff. Additional research of this type will help improve areas in pretrial GPS supervision for IPV/DV cases and inform agency policy and procedure which, ultimately, will help enhance the service pretrial officers deliver to defendants, victims, and their local criminal-legal system.

Footnotes

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 research was supported by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice under grant number 2010-IJ-CX-K023. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations reflect those of the authors and not any aforementioned agency. This research has been conducted in accordance with the National Institute of Justice’s requirements for research independence and integrity; the authors have no vested interests in commercial communication technology products, processes, or services. Preliminary findings were presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Criminal Justice Association (Chicago, IL) in 2018.

Author Biographies

Spencer G. Lawson, PhD, is a Sr. Research Scientist in the Law & Psychiatry Program and Implementation Science and Practice Advances Research Center (iSPARC) at UMass Chan Medical School. His research considers the practical implications for managing and preventing behavioral health conditions through the implementation of data-driven screening and assessment instruments and a risk-need-responsivity approach among people across multiple points in the criminal-legal system. His recent work has appeared in Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Criminology & Public Policy, American Journal of Criminal Justice, and BMC Psychiatry.

Eric Grommon, PhD, is an Associate Professor within the O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IUPUI. His research seeks to understand and evaluate justice system programs, policies, and operations. His contributions have been published in Criminology & Public Policy, Evaluation Review, Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and Justice Quarterly.

References

Ambert

A.-M.

Adler

P. A.

Adler

Detzner

D. F.

(1995). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(4), 879–893. https://doi.org/10.2307/353409

Barbour

R. S.

(2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? The BMJ, 322(7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

Bechtel

Holsinger

A. M.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Warren

M. J.

(2017). A meta-analytic review of pretrial research: Risk assessment, bond type, and interventions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(2), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9367-1

Beehr

T. A.

(1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. Routledge.

Beehr

T. A.

Newman

J. E.

(1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31(4), 665–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb02118.x

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun

Clarke

(2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196

Carter

J. G.

Grommon

(2016). Police as alert responders? Lessons learned about perceived roles and responses from pretrial GPS supervision of domestic violence defendants. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(4), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paw009

DeMichele

Payne

(2018). Taking officer time seriously: A study of the daily activities of probation officers. Probation Journal, 65(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517748358

10.

Eife

(2022). Electronic monitoring during pretrial release. In Scott-Hayward

C. S.

Copp

J. E.

Demuth

(Eds.), Handbook on pretrial justice (Vol. 6, pp. 194–213). Routledge.

11.

Eife

Kirk

(2021). “And you will wait . . .”: Carceral transportation in electronic monitoring as part of the punishment process. Punishment & Society, 23(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474520941936

12.

Erez

Ibarra

P. R.

Bales

W. D.

Gur

O. M.

(2012). GPS monitoring technologies and domestic violence: An evaluation study (NCJ 238910). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238910.pdf

13.

Erez

Ibarra

P. R.

Gur

O. M.

(2013). Using GPS in domestic violence cases: Lessons from a study of pretrial programs. The Journal of Offender Monitoring, 25(1), 5–10.

14.

Fusch

P. I.

Ness

L. R.

(2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416.

15.

Gayman

M. D.

Powell

N. K.

Bradley

M. S.

(2018). Probation/parole officer psychological well-being: The impact of supervising persons with mental health needs. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9422-6

16.

Grommon

Carter

J. G.

(2015). Case study of the use of GPS pretrial supervision for intimate partner and domestic violence offenses. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

17.

Grommon

Rydberg

Carter

J. G.

(2017). Does GPS supervision of intimate partner violence defendants reduce pretrial misconduct? Evidence from a quasi-experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(4), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9304-4

18.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

19.

Gur

O. M.

Ibarra

P. R.

Erez

(2016). Specialization and the use of GPS for domestic violence by pretrial programs: Findings from a National Survey of US practitioners. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 34(1), 32–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2016.1139418

20.

Holsinger

A. M.

Holsinger

(2018). Analyzing bond supervision survey data: The effects of pretrial detention on self-reported outcomes. Federal Probation, 82(2), 39–45.

21.

Ibarra

P. R.

(2005). Red flags and trigger control: The role of human supervision in an electronic monitoring program. Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance, 6(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1521-6136(04)06003-8

22.

Ibarra

P. R.

Erez

(2005). Victim-centric diversion? The electronic monitoring of domestic violence cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.639

23.

Ibarra

P. R.

Gur

O. M.

Erez

(2014). Surveillance as casework: Supervising domestic violence defendants with GPS technology. Crime, Law and Social Change, 62(4), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-014-9536-4

24.

Ibarra

P. R.

Gur

O. M.

Erez

(2023). Mismatches and criminal justice policy: The case of GPS for domestic violence. Criminology & Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958231159364

25.

Jones

M. R.

(2013). Unsecured bonds: The most effective and efficient pretrial release option (NCJ Number: 247065). Pretrial Justice Institute. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/unsecured-bonds-most-effective-and-efficient-pretrial-release

26.

Lawson

S. G.

(2022). Occupational stress among employees in criminal-legal systems: A meta-analysis‬ (Publication No. 29260443) [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

27.

Lewis

K. R.

Lewis

L. S.

Garby

T. M.

(2013). Surviving the trenches: The personal impact of the job on probation officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9165-3

28.

Logan

T. K.

Walker

(2009). Civil protective order outcomes: Violations and perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(4), 675–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508317186

29.

Lowder

E. M.

Diaz

C. L.

Grommon

Ray

B. R.

(2021). Effects of pretrial risk assessments on release decisions and misconduct outcomes relative to practice as usual. Journal of Criminal Justice, 73, Article 101754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101754

30.

Lowry

K. D.

(2000). United States probation/pretrial officers’ concerns about victimization and officer safety training. Federal Probation, 64(1), 51–55.

31.

Mack

K. Y.

Rhineberger-Dunn

(2021). Burnout among community corrections officers: Do supervisor and coworker support matter? Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research, 6(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2019.1593067

32.

Miller

(2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the “synthetic” officer? Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 314–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2013.770546

33.

Norman

Ricciardelli

(2022). Operational and organisational stressors in community correctional work: Insights from probation and parole officers in Ontario, Canada. Probation Journal, 69(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550520984253

34.

O’Reilly

Parker

(2013). “Unsatisfactory saturation””: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106

35.

Payne

B. K.

DeMichele

(2011). Probation philosophies and workload considerations. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-010-9101-3

36.

Pitts

W. J.

(2007). Educational competency as an indicator of occupational stress for probation and parole officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-007-9010-2

37.

Rhineberger-Dunn

Mack

K. Y.

(2019). Impact of workplace factors on role-related stressors and job stress among community corrections staff. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(8), 1204–1228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418787227

38.

Rhineberger-Dunn

Mack

K. Y.

(2020). The impact of individual factors, job characteristics, and organizational variables on job stress and job satisfaction among community corrections staff. Criminal Justice Review, 45(4), 464–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016820927077

39.

Rhineberger-Dunn

Mack

K. Y.

Baker

K. M.

(2016). Secondary trauma among community corrections staff: An exploratory study. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(5), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2016.1181132

40.

Rhineberger-Dunn

Mack

K. Y.

Baker

K. M.

(2017). Comparing demographic factors, background characteristics, and workplace perceptions as predictors of burnout among community corrections officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816666583

41.

Rubin

H. J.

Rubin

I. S.

(2005). Conversational partnerships. In H. J. Rubin & I. S. Rubin (Eds.), Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed., pp. 79–107). Sage.

42.

Scott-Hayward

C. S.

Fradella

H. F.

(2019). Punishing poverty: How bail and pretrial detention fuel inequalities in the criminal justice system. University of California Press.

43.

Slate

Wells

Johnson

(2003). Opening the manager’s door: State probation officer stress and perceptions of participation in workplace decision making. Crime & Delinquency, 49(4), 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703256526

44.

Smith

S. G.

Zhang

Basile

K. C.

Merrick

M. T.

Kresnow

Chen

(2018). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief—updated release. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

45.

Stevenson

M. T.

Mayson

S. G.

(2017). Pretrial detention and bail. Academy for Justice. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2939273

46.

St. Louis

. (2022). Does jail derail? The state of literature on cumulative disadvantage and pretrial detention. In Scott-Hayward

C. S.

Copp

J. E.

Demuth

(Eds.), Handbook on pretrial justice (Vol. 6, pp. 51–66). Routledge.

47.

Wojcik

M. L. T.

Rubenstein

B. Y.

Petkus

A. A.

Racadio

Anderson

V. R.

Fisher

B. S.

Wilcox

Bleser

(2021). Coming together in the fight against intimate partner violence: Lessons learned from a researcher–practitioner collaboration evaluating Cincinnati’s Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT). Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986221999861

48.

Zeoli

A. M.

Paruk

J. K.

(2020). Potential to prevent mass shootings through domestic violence firearm restrictions. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12475