Mismatches are incongruencies between programmatic policies and working practices that engender counter-productive dynamics or outcomes relative to aspirations. The present article addresses electronic monitoring programs for domestic violence/intimate partner violence, examining how mismatches may emerge during their implementation or later. Electronic monitoring programs aim to surveil and deter defendants facing domestic violence/intimate partner violence–related charges during court-supervised release, with the aim of enhancing victim safety. Analysis of qualitative and survey data from a national (US) study suggests that domestic violence/intimate partner violence–focused strategies reliant on surveillance technology may be prone to generating mismatches rooted in discrepancies between victims’ expectations, defendant risk profiles, and program operations. Policy implications of mismatches in victim-focused initiatives are considered.
AllenNE (2006) An examination of the effectiveness of domestic violence coordinating councils. Violence against Women12(1): 46–67.
2.
AllenNEWattKAHessJZ (2008) A qualitative study of the activities and outcomes of domestic violence coordinating councils. American Journal of Community Psychology41(1–2): 63–73.
3.
BowmanCG (1992) The arrest experiments: A feminist critique. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology83(1): 201–208.
4.
BrayneS (2017) Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review82(5): 977–1008.
5.
BurnsSPeyrotM (2022) Social Problems and Social Control in Criminal Justice. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
BuzawaESBuzawaCG (2013) Evidence-based prosecution: Is it worth the cost?Criminology & Public Policy12(3): 491–505.
8.
CampbellJCWebsterDWGlassN (2009) The danger assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence24(4): 653–674.
CohenS (1985) Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11.
CrenshawK (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum140: 139–167.
12.
CurryMRPhillipsDJReganPM (2004) Emergency response systems and the creeping legibility of people and places. The Information Society20: 357–369.
13.
De LeonGMelnickGClelandCM (2010) Matching to sufficient treatment: Some characteristics of undertreated (mismatched) clients. Journal of Addictive Diseases29(1): 59–67.
14.
DonnellyDACookKJVan AusdaleD, et al. (2005) White privilege, color blindness, and services to battered women. Violence against Women11(1): 6–37.
15.
DorfMCFaganJA (2003) Problem-solving courts: From innovation to institutionalization. American Criminal Law Review40(4): 1501–1511.
16.
DunnJLPowell-WilliamsM (2007) “Everybody makes choices”: Victim advocates and the social construction of battered women’s victimization and agency. Violence against Women13(10): 977–1001.
17.
ErezE (2002) Domestic violence and the criminal justice system: An overview. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing7(1): 4.
18.
ErezEAdelmanMGregoryC (2009) Intersections of immigration and domestic violence: Voices of battered immigrant women. Feminist Criminology4(1): 32–56.
19.
ErezEGlobokarJLIbarraPR (2014) Outsiders inside: Victim management in an era of participatory reforms. International Review of Victimology20(1): 169–188.
20.
ErezEIbarraPR (2007) Making your home a shelter: Electronic monitoring and victim re-entry in domestic violence cases. British Journal of Criminology47 (1): 100–120.
21.
ErezEIbarraPRLurieNA (2004) Electronic monitoring of domestic violence cases: A study of two bilateral programs. Federal Probation68(1): 15–20.
22.
ErezEIbarraPRBalesWD, et al. (2012) GPS monitoring technologies and domestic violence: An evaluation study. Report, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, June.
23.
ErezEIbarraPRGurEM (2013) Using GPS in domestic violence cases: Lessons from a study of pretrial programs. Journal of Offender Monitoring25(1): 5–10.
FinnMA (2013) Overview of: “Evidence-based and victim-centered prosecutorial policies: Examination of deterrent and therapeutic jurisprudence effects on domestic violence.” Criminology & Public Policy12(3): 441–442.
26.
FordDA (1991) Prosecution as a victim power resource: A note on empowering women in violent conjugal relationships. Law & Society Review25(2): 313–334.
27.
FordDA (2003) Coercing victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence18(6): 669–684.
28.
GableRSGableRK (2016) Remaking the electronic tracking of offenders into a persuasive technology. Journal of Technology in Human Services34(1): 13–31.
29.
GoodmarkL (2011) A Troubled Marriage: Domestic Violence and the Legal System. New York: New York University Press.
30.
GregoryCErezE (2002) The effects of batterer intervention programs. Violence against Women8(2): 206–232.
31.
GrieppJPMeisnerTGMilesDJ (2010) Intimate Partner Violence Victims Charged with Crime: Justice and Accountability for Victims of Battering Who Use Violence against Their Batterers. Washington, DC: Aequitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence against Women.
32.
GurOMIbarraPRErezE (2016) Specialization and the use of GPS for domestic violence by pretrial programs: Findings from a national survey of U.S. practitioners. Journal of Technology in Human Services34(1): 32–62.
33.
HealeyKSmithCO’SullivanC (1998) Batterer Intervention: Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Issues and Practices Series.
34.
HesterMWestmarlandN (2005) Tackling domestic violence: Effective interventions and approaches. Home Office Research Study 290. Available at: http://dro.dur.ac.uk/2556/1/2556.pdf
IbarraPR (2005) Red flags and trigger control: The role of human supervision in an electronic monitoring program. Sociology of Crime Law and Deviance6: 31–48.
39.
IbarraPRErezE (2005) Victim-centric diversion? The electronic monitoring of domestic violence cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law23(2): 259–276.
40.
IbarraPRGurOMErezE (2014) Surveillance as casework: Supervising domestic violence defendants with GPS technology. Crime, Law and Social Change62(4): 417–444.
41.
KoeglCJRushBR (2011) Predictors of mismatched community mental health care among persons with co-occurring substance use and mental disorders. Mental Health and Substance Use4(4): 270–276.
42.
KoopsBJ (2021) The concept of function creep. Law, Innovation and Technology13(1): 29–56.
43.
LabriolaMBradleySO’SullivanCS, et al. (2010) National portrait of domestic violence courts. Report, National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, February.
44.
LosekeDR (1992) The Battered Woman and Shelters: The Social Construction of Wife Abuse. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
45.
LosekeDR (2003) Thinking About Social Problems: An Introduction to Constructionist Perspectives, 2nd edn. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
46.
McPhersonCMSauderM (2013) Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly59(2): 165–196.
47.
MaytalA (2008) Specialized domestic violence courts: Are they worth the trouble in Massachusetts?Public Interest Law Journal18: 197–235.
48.
MazurRAldrichL (2003) What Makes a Domestic Violence Court Work? Lessons from New York. Judges’ Journal42(2): 5–9 and 4–12.
49.
MerrySE (2001) Spatial governmentality and the new urban social order: Controlling gender violence through law. American Anthropologist103(1): 16–29.
50.
MillerSL (2001) Victims as Offenders: The Paradox of Women’s Violence in Relationships. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
51.
MillerSL (2005) Criminalized Conduct: The Paradox of Women Arrested for Domestic Violence. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
52.
PatersonC (2022) Justice-system monitoring technologies and victim welfare. In: ErezEIbarraPR (eds) Oxford Encyclopedia of International Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 777–795.
53.
Report of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Ad Hoc Working Group on Family Violence (2013) Making the Links in Family Violence Cases: Collaboration among the Family, Child Protection and Criminal Justice Systems (Volume I). Ottawa, ON, Canada: Department of Justice.
54.
SchneiderEM (2000) Battered Women & Feminist Lawmaking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
55.
ShaplandJWillmoreJDuffP (1985) Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Aldershot: Gower.
56.
TierneyKJ (1982) The battered women movement and the creation of the wife beating problem. Social Problems29(3): 207–220.
57.
WalkerLE (1979) The Battered Woman. New York: Harper and Row.
58.
WalkerLEA (2007) Legal issues for battered women. In: JacksonNA (ed.) Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence. New York: Routledge, pp. 440–448.
59.
WolfRV (2005) California’s collaborative justice courts: Building a problem-solving judiciary. Center for Court Innovation and Judicial Council of California. Available at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California_Story.pdf
