Electronic Monitoring For Criminal Offenders

ELECTRONIC MONITORING: THE FUTURE OF CRIME CONTROL? KEVIN P. BARRY March 2009

INTRODUCTION This paper provides an overview of electronic monitoring (EM) from a crimecontrol policy perspective. It includes some general background on the subject; a description of the current technology; a review of recent developments in empirical research on EM’s effectiveness; a discussion of the related benefits, costs, and other issues facing policymakers and EM program administrators; and a short list of considerations for criminal-justice agencies to take into account in deciding how best to electronically monitor criminal offenders. The experiences that agencies in a number of jurisdictions throughout the United States have had with electronic monitoring serve as useful guides in this regard, offering a glimpse of the largely untapped potential of EM as a central crime-control strategy—and the many challenges currently standing in the way.

BACKGROUND Electronic monitoring, which is used to enforce the conditions of release for criminal offenders, strengthens the ability of corrections officials and law enforcement authorities to supervise offenders in the community by keeping them under closer surveillance than they otherwise could. While its role in community corrections and the overall criminal-justice system is still minor, as the technology has improved (especially with regard to global-positioning systems, or GPS) and its potential upside made more

apparent to policymakers, EM has become an increasingly used criminal-justice tool across the U.S. in recent years—at the federal, state, and local level.1 Already, at least 33 states monitor offenders with GPS, another nine use an alternative form of EM despite not using GPS, and several others have launched pilot programs.2 Although many of the electronic-monitoring programs now in place strictly target sex offenders—sometimes for life—EM is also used in certain jurisdictions to monitor a variety of other offender types, who may be under the supervision of pretrial release, prison or jail release programs, probation, or parole.3 Sometimes, EM is even used in lieu of a prison or jail sentence altogether.4 Legislation can be either enabling or mandatory; that is, the supervising authorities may, within the bounds of the applicable statutory framework, be able to impose EM at their discretion—or they may be required to do so.5

FORMS OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING Most electronic monitoring uses either radio-frequency (RF) or GPS technology. RF technology transmits a signal from a bracelet worn by the offender (typically around the ankle) to a receiver connected to his home telephone line. The signal has a very limited range, so if the offender leaves his home, it is broken and the authorities are 1

Although the focus here is national, electronic monitoring is by no means unique to the U.S.—it is used to supervise offenders in several other countries as well. 2 Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General, Bureau of Special Performance Audits, Using GPS technology to monitor sex offenders: Should Pennsylvania do more? (Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General, 2008), 5. http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Reports/Performance/Special/speGPS072108.pdf 3 Ann H. Crowe, Linda Sydney, Pat Bancroft, and Beverly Lawrence, Offender Supervision With Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide (Lexington, KY: American Parole and Probation Association, 2002), 5. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/197102.pdf 4 Tracy M.L. Brown, Steven A. McCabe, and Charles Wellford, Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned (Falls Church, VA: Center for Criminal Justice Technology, 2007), 2.25. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219376.pdf 5 Crowe et al., Offender Supervision With Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide, 18.

2

alerted. RF monitoring is thus only effective for determining whether the offender is at home at any given time. GPS, the newer form of monitoring technology, uses a system of satellites and cellular communications networks that correspond with a receiver and transmitter carried by the offender to pinpoint his exact location—no matter where he goes—on a continuous basis.6 Similar to RF, the offender typically wears a tamperresistant anklet that activates an alarm whenever an attempt is made to disable the device. While both forms of EM technology are currently used to supervise offenders in the community, the trend clearly favors GPS, whose surveillance capacity far exceeds that of RF monitoring. GPS-based electronic monitoring can be either active or passive. Active monitoring enables the authorities to know the exact whereabouts of the offender in real time,7 which appears on a computer screen at the monitoring center. If an offender enters an “exclusion zone” (a place where he is forbidden to go) or leaves an “inclusion zone” (a place where he is required to be at specific times), the system generates an immediate alert. With passive monitoring, the offender’s movements are captured in a log but not transmitted immediately; instead, the offender transmits the location data from his home to the monitoring center through a land-line telephone on a daily basis, and the data is then processed and reviewed the next day. Newer “hybrid” systems incorporate elements of both active and passive monitoring. These systems report location data periodically

6

GPS equipment may consist of one-piece or two-piece units. The one-piece unit is an ankle bracelet with a built-in transmitter and receiver. With the two-piece unit, the transmitter and receiver are built into a separate GPS device that the offender must carry or keep close by; this device communicates via radiofrequency transmission with the offender’s ankle bracelet to ensure that both the offender and the device that determines his location are in the same place. Jesse Jannetta, Randy Myers, Lori Sexton, Sarah Smith, and Alyssa Whitby, Report on the Results of the CDCR Two-Piece GPS System Field Test (Irvine, CA: UCIrvine Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, Working Paper, Revised November 13, 2007), 2-3. http://emresourcecenter.nlectc.du.edu/emresdoc/Article-3.pdf. 7 Technically, in near-real time: location data can be updated every ten seconds or so.

3

rather than continuously—any number of times per day, depending on the preferences of corrections officials—but provide instant alerts for select incidents, such as devicetampering, transmission failures, and certain exclusion-zone violations. Some of the more advanced hybrid systems convert to active monitoring whenever such restricted areas have been entered.8 Aside from position monitoring, EM is also used to test for drug and alcohol use. One type of monitoring device measures alcohol use with a built-in breathalyzer and transmits the results through a phone line.9 A newer technology is the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) bracelet, which monitors the blood-alcohol level of offenders with ordered restrictions on alcohol consumption. The device, which measures ethanol as it evaporates through the skin and transmits the results via a modem to a monitoring station, is already used in 46 states.10 A similar system for the continuous detection of illicit drug use is currently in development.11 Another device detects drug

8

Brown et al., Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned, 1.4. 9 Michael Barrasse, “Promising Sentencing Practice No. 6: Electronic Monitoring and SCRAM.” In 10 Promising Sentencing Practices: A compendium of promising sentencing practices proposed at the NHTSA National DWI Sentencing Summit at The National Judicial College, March 15-16, 2004 (Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005). http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/PromisingSentence/pages/PSP6.htm This alcohol-monitoring technology has been in use for several years, with some positive results reported. One example is the Minnesota Remote Electronic Alcohol Monitoring (REAM) program. While ethical concerns precluded a controlled study, a program evaluation concluded that REAM was meeting its intended goals, with high employment levels among participants, low rates of violations and arrests, swift and certain response to violations, and high program completion rates. Minnesota Department of Corrections: Research & Evaluation Unit, Remote Electronic Alcohol Monitoring 2004 Report (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2004), 31. www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/legislativereports/pdf/2004/REAM%202004%20report.pdf 10 Beau Kilmer, “The Future of DIRECT Surveillance: Drug and alcohol use Information from REmote and Continuous Testing,” Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Article 1 (2008): 2-3. For a more detailed description of how the SCRAM bracelet works, see the Alcohol Monitoring Systems (AMS) website, available at http://alcoholmonitoring.com/index/scram/how-scram-works 11 Ibid., 4-5.

4

and alcohol use by offenders through sleep-pattern analysis,12 and emerging technologies also promise to provide remote drug testing—with real-time results transmitted by satellite—from audio and video-equipped kiosks.13

RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING Regrettably, there is not yet a significant body of reliable empirical research on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring as a means of supervising offenders in the community, and much of what does exist looks only at its impact on sex offenders.14 There is, however, at least one promising development in the field: a large-scale study is currently ongoing at Florida State University (FSU), and scheduled for completion in 2009. The 18-month study is funded through a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which is interested in “studying the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or other tracking technologies that permit wide-area active or passive continuous monitoring for managing serious and violent offenders, including but not limited to sex and/or domestic violence offenders.”15 Using historical data from the Florida Department of Corrections’ EM program, the study will include an analysis of the program’s impact on certain offender outcomes (recidivism, technical violations, and absconding) both

12

One example of remote sleep-monitoring technology is the ComCor STAMP bracelet, used in Colorado. http://www.comcor.org/electronic_monitoring/index.htm 13 Ann Coppola, “Tracking the event horizon,” The Corrections Connection, June 17, 2008. http://www.corrections.com/news/article/18816 14 The Center for Criminal Justice Technology report states, “Evaluations of the effectiveness of GPS use in community supervision are rare, contradictory, and poorly designed and executed. Far more extensive, but only slightly better in design, are studies of the effectiveness of EM.” Ibid., 5-6. 15 National Institute of Justice Funding Opportunity No. 2007–NIJ–1423, Community Corrections: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring of Moderate to High-Risk Offenders Under Supervision, CFDA No. 16.560 (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 2007), 3. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/sl000783.pdf.

5

during and after electronic supervision, a quality process evaluation, and a costeffectiveness analysis.16 The NIJ-funded project builds upon EM research conducted at FSU and published in 2006.17 Characterizing evidence from previous studies on the effectiveness of EM in improving offender outcomes as “mixed” or “inconclusive,” and limited by the data and methodologies used,18 the 2006 study evaluated a sample of more than 75,000 offenders sentenced to home confinement between 1998 and 2002, including violent offenders, property offenders, and drug offenders.19 Similar to the current research, the outcomes measured included revocations for a new offense (recidivism), revocations for technical violations, and absconding (whether or not it resulted in a revocation). To evaluate the effectiveness of EM on offenders, the analysis, controlling for a host of other factors, compared outcomes between offenders with EM devices and those without, and—for the offenders with EM—also compared outcomes between RF and GPS monitoring devices to measure the relative effectiveness of the different technologies. Results from the study showed that revocations both for recidivism and technical violations were substantially lower for electronically monitored offenders than 16

The title of the study is “An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring for Medium and High Risk Offenders on Supervision and Post-Supervision Outcomes.” http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/electronic-monitoring.php 17 Kathy G. Padgett, William D. Bales, and Thomas G. Blomberg, “Under Surveillance: An Empirical Test of the Effectiveness and Consequences of Electronic Monitoring,” Criminology & Public Policy, vol. 5, No. 1 (2006): 61-92. 18 The authors contrast their assessment to that of Marc Renzema and Evan Mayo-Wilson, who, in a 2005 review of the existing studies on EM, characterized the results as “grim” and concluded that “applications of EM as a tool for reducing crime are not supported by existing data.” However, Renzema and MayoWilson did not review any studies GPS tracking, as all such studies failed to meet their review criteria. Marc Renzema and Evan Mayo-Wilson, “Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders?” Journal of Experimental Criminology, Vol. 1 (2005): 215-37. 19 In Florida, home confinement could be the result of an original sentence, a split sentence (in which home confinement is preceded by a prison term), a condition of parole, or a probation violation. Although more than 75,000 offenders were placed on home confinement during this time period, only a small percentage of them were electronically monitored, however. Florida began to monitor offenders with GPS in 1997; it was the first state to do so.

6

for those without EM, as was also the case with the rate of absconding. RF and GPS monitoring were equally effective in reducing recidivism and absconding. RF monitoring resulted in a slightly lower incidence of technical violations than GPS monitoring; however, differences were slight and may merely reflect the “surveillance effect” hypothesis: that GPS is more effective at detecting violations because it is the more advanced technology.20 Outcomes were also fairly consistent between violent offenders, property offenders, and drug offenders. Based on these results, the authors concluded that electronic monitoring has a significant effect on public safety. In addition, they found little evidence of a netwidening effect of Florida’s EM program—in fact, the results generally indicated the opposite, at least on the back end.21 Still, the authors’ conclusions do need to be put in perspective: they provide only limited value in a policy context. As the editorial introduction to the study noted, “These findings are clear and unequivocal, but they cannot be accepted as definitive,” adding that, “We know little about the context in which EM was used: Padgett et al. have carried out a careful outcome evaluation, but without a full process evaluation, it is difficult to interpret the results.”22 However, because the current FSU research does include a process evaluation, such concerns will perhaps be

20

As a result of these findings, the authors note the significantly greater cost-effectiveness of RF than GPS (approximately $2 per diem vs. $9 per diem for roughly the same impact). However, they do not discuss the potential crime-control benefits of GPS technology’s greater surveillance capabilities. 21 Net-widening is a term used to describe an increase in the scope of the criminal-justice system. It occurs any time more offenders are brought under the control of the system, or are sanctioned more severely. Netwidening can be “front-end” (increased penalties for offenders who would not be sentenced to prison otherwise) or “back-end” (when a prison sentence becomes more likely due to a technical violation of an intermediate sanction as a result of increased supervision). The only net-widening effect of Florida’s EM program that the authors observed was front-end net-widening for drug offenders, though they do acknowledge that the effect on front-end net-widening in general “remains somewhat elusive.” Padgett et al., “Under Surveillance: An Empirical Test of the Effectiveness and Consequences of Electronic Monitoring,” 77. 22 George Mair, “Electronic Monitoring, Effectiveness, and Public Policy,” Criminology & Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2006): 57.

7

addressed. Furthermore, although the study only evaluated outcomes while offenders were electronically monitored, thereby limiting the analysis to the program’s incapacitation and deterrent effects, the NIJ study will include an evaluation of the longer-term, rehabilitative effects of EM by measuring offender outcomes for up to two years after removal from the program.

BENEFITS OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING The ability of electronic monitoring to supervise offenders in the community offers several important crime-control benefits. First and foremost, EM enforces restrictions on offenders’ movements and behaviors, and in doing so reduces their likelihood of re-offending. Depending on the conditions of release, EM may serve any number of purposes. It can be used to enforce house arrest and curfews, and to ensure that offenders report to their jobs and other obligations, such as community service or drug treatment.23 It can help keep offenders away from their potential victims; for example, by alerting authorities whenever sex offenders enter prohibited areas (such as parks, schools, and other places that children often frequent) or when domestic violence offenders violate restraining orders.24 It can also be used to make sure that juvenile offenders show up for school as required,25 and to enforce gang injunctions.26 In addition, it can enforce restrictions on drug and alcohol use, thereby helping keep substance abusers clean. 23

Mark A.R. Kleiman, “When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment,” Princeton University Press, forthcoming. 24 Victim alert notifications can also make it more difficult for offenders to carry out certain crimes by giving potential victims the opportunity to take precautions when offenders get too close to them. 25 Gretel C. Kovach, “To Curb Truancy, Dallas Tries Electronic Monitoring,” New York Times, May 12, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/education/12dallas.html?ref=education 26 At least one GPS vendor, Omnilink, specifically markets its product for gang control purposes. http://www.omnilink.com/omnilink_judicial/gang_control.aspx

8

By tracking and recording offenders’ movements, electronic monitoring can also make it very difficult to engage in criminal activity unnoticed, thus acting as a powerful deterrent.27 Because it can help law enforcement agencies corroborate complaints and solve crimes by matching offenders’ whereabouts to the locations of reported incidents and crime scenes,28 and then assist in apprehending offenders who recidivate or commit other violations, EM has the potential to make re-offending a very unattractive decision—much more so than it might otherwise be. By generating large amounts of analyzable data, EM further offers corrections officials the ability to know which locations offenders most often frequent, to learn more about their movements and activities generally, and to intervene accordingly if the need arises.29 If applied appropriately, electronic monitoring provides a number of advantages over both its more and less punitive alternatives. Primary among them is its ability to enforce restrictions in offender movements without the use of incarceration, while still providing a measure of punishment and holding offenders accountable for their actions. This can have the effect of alleviating prison and jail overcrowding, while diminishing the need to build additional detention facilities—resulting in significant cost savings to the public.30 Although EM does not technically incapacitate offenders and therefore

27

Kleiman, “When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment.” For example, in addition to using GPS monitoring to ensure that offenders continue to comply with the location-related requirements of their release, the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency, which runs a GPS program in D.C., also helps solve crimes by working with law enforcement each day to crossreference offenders’ locations with crime scenes. Scott McCabe, “D.C. leads nation in tracking offenders with GPS technology,” The Examiner, April 2, 2008. http://www.examiner.com/a1315404~D_C__leads_nation_in_tracking_offenders_with_GPS_technology.html] 29 Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole (BOPP), Monitoring Tennessee’s Sex Offenders Using Global Positioning Systems: A Project Evaluation (Nashville, TN: Tennessee BOPP, 2007), 27-28. http://tennessee.gov/bopp/Press%20Releases/BOPP%20GPS%20Program%20Evaluation,%20April%2020 07.pdf 30 John Howard Society of Alberta, Electronic (Radio Frequency) and GPS Monitored Community Based Supervision Programs (Alberta, Canada: John Howard Society of Alberta, 2006), 11. www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/PDF/monitorupdate.pdf 28

9

cannot physically prevent crime, its strong deterrent capabilities can act as a suitable substitute for many offenders, thereby helping to maintain public safety. Electronic monitoring can also benefit offenders by sparing them the negative effects of incarceration (including damage to relationships with family, friends, and the community) and encouraging compliance with the conditions of their release, thus potentially accelerating the process of reentry and rehabilitation. Moreover, EM reduces social costs, since offenders on community release can continue to be employed, allowing them to pay taxes and provide for their families.31 Lastly, to the extent that EM reduces recidivism (granted, its impact on recidivism is still an open question), costs of crime—to victims, offenders, and society—are reduced as well.32

COSTS OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING While all forms of electronic monitoring are less expensive than incarceration, the cost of GPS tracking still constitutes a possible drawback. Although some up-front capital costs are required to implement an EM program, the variable equipment and service costs (which are often paid for by the offenders themselves, if they can afford it) are limited, and have declined as the technology has matured.33 However, GPS does require significant manpower, regardless of whether monitoring center operations are handled in-house or outsourced to third-party vendors. Furthermore, the resources needed to write up violators, hear their cases in court, and incarcerate them add to overall system costs. And while greater efficiencies resulting from technological enhancements, better program management, and improved monitoring practices are inevitable, it is not

31

Ibid. Crowe et al., Offender Supervision With Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide, 45. 33 Such costs are often combined into a daily “lease fee” charged by the EM vendor for each offender. 32

10

yet clear to what extent they might eventually reduce such costs and alleviate related problems. There is some question as to whether active or passive monitoring is the cheaper GPS alternative; the answer probably depends on how it is used. In Florida, for example, according to a 2005 report to the legislature from the state’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the daily monitoring portion of passive GPS costs was less than half that of active GPS: $4.25 vs. $9 per diem.34 However, the cost of the officer workload associated with it was more than double that of active GPS, making it more costly on an overall basis: $28 vs. $20 per diem.35 Of the three types of EM used in Florida, RF monitoring had both the cheapest per diem and officer workload-associated costs—only $11 in total—making it the most inexpensive technology by a sizeable margin even over active GPS monitoring. Therefore, while RF

34

Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), Report No. 05-19: Electronic Monitoring Should Be Better Targeted to the Most Dangerous Offenders (Tallahassee, FL: OPPAGA, 2005), 5. www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0519rpt.pdf These costs appear somewhat consistent with those reported in other jurisdictions, though perhaps near the low end of the spectrum. A 2005 review by a GPS Task Force in Maryland found a range of $5 to $9 for passive GPS and $9 to $12 for active GPS. More recently, Tennessee paid a contract price of $4.25 for passive GPS and $7.70 for active GPS. Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services (DPSCS), Task Force to Study Criminal Offender Monitoring by Global Positioning Systems: Final Report to the Governor and the General Assembly (Annapolis, MD: DPSCS, 2005), 5. http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/GPS_Task_Force_Final_Report.pdf; Tennessee BOPP, Monitoring Tennessee’s Sex Offenders Using Global Positioning Systems: A Project Evaluation, 21. 35 Not surprisingly, the daily cost of incarceration is significantly higher than that of even the most expensive form of GPS tracking; in Florida, for example, it costs around $53 per day (almost $20,000 per year) to house an inmate, based on information from the Florida DOC’s website (available at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html). Thus, any form of electronic monitoring—to the extent it acts as an alternative to incarceration—will generate net cost savings. However, whether EM does indeed reduce incarceration enough to do so is an open question whose answer could vary by jurisdiction: it depends on how it is used, how much cheaper it is than incarceration, to what extent recidivism and technical violations lead to EM revocation and subsequent incarceration, and a number of other considerations. To date, it does not appear that a benefit-cost analysis that attempts to measure the budgetary impact of an EM program has ever been done. See the American Parole and Probation Association report for a detailed description of the tangible and intangible benefits and costs that would need to be considered. Crowe et al., Offender Supervision With Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide, 41-46.

11

has fewer crime-controlling capabilities than GPS, it may, according to OPPAGA, be better suited for low-level offenders placed on home confinement. Passive GPS’s larger workload in Florida was the result of probation officers having to review the previous day’s data for violations (a time-consuming process) and follow up on a greater number of incidents (almost three times as many per offender as active GPS), many of them false alarms.36 Because passive GPS was thus more inefficient than active GPS (in addition to having lower surveillance value), OPPAGA recommended discontinuing its use altogether, which the Department of Corrections subsequently did.37 The Kansas Sex Offender Policy Board, in considering the use of EM to track sex offenders under state law, expressed similar concerns about the costeffectiveness of passive GPS.38 Still, not all corrections departments have had the same experience as Florida, and in fact, Florida might actually be an exception. Michigan, for example, decided to use passive GPS monitoring to track paroled sex offenders after concluding that active monitoring was too demanding, requiring an enforcement team able to respond roundthe-clock to the high volume of alerts generated by the system. An additional concern about active monitoring in Michigan was the limited number of exclusion zones the system could program, making it less effective for offenders prohibited from entering

36

OPPAGA, Report No. 05-19: Electronic Monitoring Should Be Better Targeted to the Most Dangerous Offenders, 5. 37 As of 2007, active GPS was used for 89% of electronically monitored offenders in Florida, with RF used for the remainder. Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), Report No. 07-42: Electronic Monitoring Expanded to Target Communities’ More Dangerous Offenders (Tallahassee, FL: OPPAGA, 2007), 1. http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0742rpt.pdf 38 Kansas Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB), Report on Utilization of Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders (Topeka, KS: Kansas SOPB, 2007), 8. www.governor.ks.gov/grants/policies/docs/SOPBReport.pdf

12

many different zones.39 Budget constraints similarly derailed an active GPS pilot program in Prince George’s County, Maryland, in 2005.40 A Maryland GPS Task Force, in surveying several jurisdictions across the country with GPS programs, further reported on the high level of resources required to monitor offenders using GPS (especially active GPS), with typical caseloads of 20-25 offenders per officer for active monitoring, and no more than 40 offenders for passive monitoring.41 Analyzing data, managing the equipment, and investigating alerts all contributed to the high personnel costs.42 The Task Force cited “information overload” as one major problem associated with GPS monitoring,43 and a Tennessee GPS pilot project evaluation even reported that the stress of actively monitoring offenders had taken a considerable toll on the personal lives of GPS officers.44 The frequency of false alarms—which often result from signal interruptions, inaccurate readings that misreport offender positions, and the loss of battery power—is particularly problematic.45 Despite these concerns, however, the extent of the problems commonly reported by program administrators may simply reflect the fact that so many of the GPS programs 39

Wendy Koch, “More sex offenders tracked by satellite,” USA Today, June 6, 2006. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-06-06-gps-tracking_x.htm 40 Maryland DPSCS, Task Force to Study Criminal Offender Monitoring by Global Positioning Systems: Final Report to the Governor and the General Assembly, 6. 41 Ibid., 20. The Florida DOC’s recommendation that officer caseloads include only eight offenders for passive monitoring—vs. 17 for active monitoring—may thus be an outlier. OPPAGA, Report No. 05-19: Electronic Monitoring Should Be Better Targeted to the Most Dangerous Offenders, 5. 42 Increased personnel costs may not be limited to corrections departments. In jurisdictions where correctional officers do not have law enforcement powers, police backup may be required to assist in the response to certain types of potential violations. The necessary coordination between agencies in this regard also presents an operational challenge. Furthermore, the adjudication of these potential violations increases court costs and requires an additional level of governmental cooperation as well. 43 Maryland DPSCS, Task Force to Study Criminal Offender Monitoring by Global Positioning Systems: Final Report to the Governor and the General Assembly, 20. 44 Tennessee BOPP, Monitoring Tennessee’s Sex Offenders Using Global Positioning Systems: A Project Evaluation, 31. 45 In Arizona, for example, a GPS program with 140 monitored offenders generated 35,000 false alarms in the first year alone. Douglas S. Malan and Paul Sussman, “False Alarms Common With GPS Monitoring,” Connecticut Law Tribune, September 22, 2008. http://www.ctlawtribune.com/getarticle.aspx?ID=31533

13

now in place are used to monitor sex offenders, which presents a unique and complex set of issues. Sex offenders are a more difficult population to monitor relative to other offender types for a number of reasons: their movements are typically subject to a greater number of restrictions, the sensitive nature of their presence in the community demands close supervision and swift responses to alarms, and the fear of failing to prevent a new offense may be considerably stress-inducing for officials responsible for monitoring their whereabouts.46 It is hard to imagine how monitoring low-level offenders with only a curfew and perhaps a daily work or community-service requirement could be nearly as taxing as ensuring that sex offenders do not approach schools, parks, and other public spaces—and reacting quickly when they do. Nevertheless, the budgetary and operational issues that public officials continue to struggle with are not the only costs of electronic monitoring: the toll that electronic supervision can also take on the lives of monitored offenders should be viewed as a cost as well. In addition to often having to pay a fee to cover the cost of monitoring, offenders must deal with the inconveniences associated with the technology, such as having to frequently charge the batteries47 and resolve the false alarms and other technical problems that are still somewhat commonplace with EM. Offenders may also suffer from the effects of social stigmatization if they are unable to keep the monitoring devices hidden from others, and the risk of inadvertent technical violations and their consequences

46

Furthermore, in states with laws requiring that sex offenders be monitored for life, the question of who is responsible for the monitoring is not always clear. In California, for example, the implementation of Proposition 83 has been hampered by ambiguity in the law with respect to who should monitor sex offenders after they complete parole. Michael Rothfeld, “Some sex offenders are not being tracked,” Los Angeles Times, October 19, 2007. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/19/local/me-offenders19 47 This is a particular problem with the one-piece GPS unit, which essentially immobilizes the offender while its battery charges. Jesse Jannetta et al., Report on the Results of the CDCR Two-Piece GPS System Field Test, 5.

14

constitutes yet an additional cost to the offender.48 Homeless offenders, moreover, have the added difficulty of finding an accessible power source to charge their batteries.49 Notwithstanding these problems, however, electronic monitoring still clearly provides those who would otherwise be incarcerated with a substantial net benefit: it seems highly unlikely that an offender would opt instead for prison or jail if given the choice.50 Furthermore, improvements in monitoring technology should continue to reduce the daily cost of monitoring, extend battery lives, cut down on the frequency of false alarms and other technical problems, decrease the size of the monitoring units (making them easier to conceal underneath one’s clothing), and reduce the risk of inadvertent technical violations. As a result, such improvements are likely to make EM even less of a burden to offenders over time—possibly to the point where it is no more than a minimal disruption to their lives.

OTHER PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH ELECTRONIC MONITORING The strains that electronic monitoring can put on agency budgets, officials, and offenders are not the only issues of possible concern. Despite the great promise of EM— particularly GPS—there are several potential problems, including technological limitations (especially in urban areas where buildings and other structures sometimes

48

The loss of liberty that accompanies movement restrictions is another cost related to electronic monitoring; however, it is not a cost of EM per se: EM is merely the tool used to enforce such restrictions. Nevertheless, if criminal-justice authorities place additional restrictions on offenders simply because EM provides the added capacity to enforce them—in other words, if they use EM as an opportunity to extend their control over offenders in the community—then the marginal loss of liberty that results is indeed another cost of electronic monitoring. 49 In California, the number of transient paroled sex offenders subject to GPS monitoring has skyrocketed in recent years. Jim McKay, “Sex Offenders’ GPS Devices Not a Silver Bullet, States Say,” Government Technology, January 29, 2009. http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/596099 50 William Saletan, “Call My Cell: Why GPS tracking is good news for inmates,” Slate Magazine, May 7, 2005. http://www.slate.com/id/2118117/

15

obstruct the satellite signal, resulting in dead spots), the misuse of monitoring capacity by judges and corrections officials (e.g., for dangerous offenders who should instead be incarcerated and for low-level offenders who aren’t a threat to the community and don’t warrant monitoring), privacy and security issues surrounding the monitoring data collected, and the possibility that EM is used to replace rather than complement a comprehensive reentry strategy.51 There are legal issues as well: a report on EM by the International Association of Chiefs of Police raises the prospect of legal challenges to monitoring programs as they become more prevalent,52 and the Maryland GPS Task Force report further notes the risk of legal liability resulting from monitoring failures.53 Nonetheless, most of the troublesome issues with electronic-monitoring programs are not inherent, but rather stem from concerns about how such programs might be structured and implemented. Thus, effectively designed, well-managed, and responsible programs should be able to prevent these issues from becoming too problematic, and new innovations and advances in existing technologies (as well as an increasingly robust GPS infrastructure) are already improving monitoring capabilities in areas where system coverage is currently weak.54 However, reaching that point will not be easy, and it may take some time before electronic monitoring plays a major role in crime-control policy. In the meantime, there are hurdles to overcome: difficult operational challenges involve

51

Jonathan J. Wroblewski, “ReSTART: GPS, Offender Reentry, and a New Paradigm for Determinate Sentencing,” Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 20, No. 5 (2008): 315. 52 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Tracking Sex Offenders with Electronic Monitoring Technology: Implications and Practical Uses for Law Enforcement (Alexandria, VA: IACP, 2008), 9. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/IACPSexOffenderElecMonitoring.pdf 53 Maryland DPSCS, Task Force to Study Criminal Offender Monitoring by Global Positioning Systems: Final Report to the Governor and the General Assembly, 21. 54 See Chapter 4 of the Center for Criminal Justice Technology report for a detailed description of new and emerging EM technologies. Brown et al., Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned, 4.1-4.22.

16

managing lofty expectations, getting key stakeholders to cooperate,55 and increasing the scale of EM programs.56 Confronting these challenges and moving up the learning curve will thus require the implementation and evaluation of more pilot programs so that officials can assess their cost-effectiveness and identify deployment-related problems.57 The experience of the Florida DOC’s Office of Community Corrections highlights one related problem: the misuse of electronic monitoring by judges and corrections officials—specifically, the inefficient targeting of offenders for placement under EM supervision and a sub-optimal level of overall EM use.58 (The example is also perhaps indicative of the failure of the relevant public officials to work together in pursuit of sound policy.) According to the 2005 OPPAGA report, electronic monitoring in Florida was disproportionately used on less serious offenders (typically property and drug offenders) than the more dangerous—often violent—offenders in the community also eligible for electronic monitoring under state law.59 The report also noted that the corrections department, despite having the authority to impose EM on eligible offenders at its own discretion, rarely exercised it. Its unwillingness to do so was the result of a previous legal decision which ruled that an offender’s noncompliance with EM did not constitute grounds for the revocation of his community-control status because the EM had never been approved by the court in the first place.60

55

See the American Parole and Probation Association report for a comprehensive list of key EM program stakeholders. Crowe et al., Offender Supervision With Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide, 115-19. 56 Wroblewski, “ReSTART: GPS, Offender Reentry, and a New Paradigm for Determinate Sentencing,” 317. 57 Ibid. 58 This characterization of the situation in Florida is, of course, subjective—the judges and corrections officials involved in the matter might, in fact, disagree. 59 OPPAGA, Report No. 05-19: Electronic Monitoring Should Be Better Targeted to the Most Dangerous Offenders, 2-3. 60 Ibid., 4; OPPAGA, Report No. 07-42: Electronic Monitoring Expanded to Target Communities’ More Dangerous Offenders, 2.

17

A 2007 follow-up OPPAGA progress report further cited the reluctance of judges to impose electronic monitoring on eligible offenders, except where required by law,61 resulting in the underutilization of EM and the return of millions of dollars of appropriated funds to the state.62 In both the 2005 and 2007 reports, OPPAGA recommended giving the corrections department the statutory authority to revoke noncourt-ordered EM, and to use a risk-assessment tool to prioritize offender placements. However, perhaps because the department does not actually want this additional authority (due to concerns about liability), the Florida legislature has not acted on either of these recommendations.63

WHAT’S THE BEST WAY TO MONITOR OFFENDERS? The choice of how best to electronically monitor a given population of offenders (if at all) depends on a number of considerations, including offender profiles, the level of resources available to meet the demands of EM enforcement, the results of programmatic evaluations, and—if applicable—the mandates of governing statutes.64 In general, the more dangerous offenders require more active supervision than the less dangerous ones. However, active GPS monitoring may well be more expensive than the less intensive 61

The Jessica Lunsford Act of 2005 (better known as “Jessica’s Law,” similar versions of which have proliferated across the U.S.) mandates electronic monitoring for certain types of offenders—most notably for sex offenders who are either on parole or have violated probation. However, Florida law also allows for the electronic monitoring of serious habitual offenders (many of whom are violent) and any offender under “community control,” a type of intensive supervision imposing certain movement restrictions that is often applied to drug and property offenders. OPPAGA, Report No. 07-42: Electronic Monitoring Expanded to Target Communities’ More Dangerous Offenders, 2-3. 62 Ibid., 3-4. Workload constraints and fewer EM-mandated offenders than expected also contributed to this return of funds, which only covered the cost of equipment—not the additional officer workload required to monitor offenders and respond to alarms. 63 Ibid., 3. 64 In New Jersey, for example, the 2005 “Sex Offender Monitoring Pilot Project Act” required the State Parole Board to “investigate and respond to all program violations immediately and at all times.” The Board subsequently determined that only with active GPS technology could this be done. New Jersey State Parole Board, Report on New Jersey’s GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders (Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Parole Board, 2007), 3. http://emresourcecenter.nlectc.du.edu/emresdoc/Article-2.pdf

18

forms of monitoring (from both higher vendor fees and internal personnel requirements); thus, the marginal benefits of active monitoring need to be considered in relation to the affordability of its marginal costs. For jurisdictions seeking to monitor offenders more actively, though without the additional burdens of enforcement that they are perhaps unable to handle, hybrid systems may provide a way to address such cost concerns. Using hybrid GPS monitoring, agencies whose scarce resources would be swamped by fully active monitoring could simply target their rapid-response capabilities to higher-risk activity. Even without hybrid systems, however, it may also be possible for jurisdictions to actively monitor high-risk offenders using GPS while passively monitoring lower-risk offenders using either GPS or RF—essentially serving the same purpose. Such is currently the case in New Mexico, where the corrections department monitors most offenders with passive GPS, but actively monitors a select group of high-risk sex offenders with the help of the Albuquerque Sheriff’s Office.65

CONCLUSION Recent and continuing technological developments in GPS-based electronic monitoring have improved its reliability, reduced the size and weight of the equipment that offenders must carry, and driven down costs. As a result, GPS monitoring—which could either complement or replace traditional RF monitoring—is now a viable supervision strategy for many criminal-justice agencies, offering them a powerful way to enforce intermediate sanctions on criminal offenders in a potentially cost-effective manner. This added flexibility could help correctional departments relieve crowded 65

Brown et al., Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned, 2.5-2.6.

19

detention facilities, gain the compliance of difficult-to-manage parolees and probationers, and discourage criminal behavior among even the most criminally inclined elements of the population. If properly harnessed, electronic monitoring may one day dramatically transform crime-control policy for the better. Nevertheless, implementing and expanding successful EM programs beyond their current niche in criminal justice will be a complicated and gradual process, one that will depend on the continued support of political leaders, criminal-justice officials, and the community. Meanwhile, more empirical research and analysis is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of EM programs, which can inform policymakers and help them to better assess the optimal role of electronic monitoring in their jurisdictions.

20