The Most Important Part of Electronic Monitoring Happens Before the Device Goes On

Most electronic monitoring problems do not begin with the technology.

They begin before the device is ever installed.

A GPS device can report location accurately. An alcohol monitor can collect reliable testing data. A monitoring platform can generate alerts exactly as it was designed to do.

But none of that answers a more fundamental question:

What exactly are we monitoring for?

Before a person is placed on electronic monitoring, someone has to translate a court order, supervision condition, or agency directive into an actual monitoring program.

That step may determine whether everything that follows works.

A Device Cannot Fix an Unclear Order

Consider a GPS order stating that a person must stay away from a particular individual.

That sounds straightforward.

But what does it mean operationally?

What address should be protected?

How large should the exclusion zone be?

Does the restriction include the person's workplace?

What about a school attended by their children?

What happens if the protected person moves?

Is the participant prohibited only from entering the property, or from coming within a specific distance?

Those details matter because GPS technology does not interpret intent. It applies the parameters entered into the system.

The same issue exists with house arrest.

If someone may leave home for employment, the monitoring provider needs more than the words "work purposes."

Where do they work?

What hours are authorized?

Is travel time included?

Can the schedule change?

Who has authority to approve a change?

Without clear answers, the technology may identify movement, but the people reviewing it may not know whether that movement represents compliance or a violation.

Good Monitoring Starts With Good Information

Electronic monitoring works best when expectations are established before activation.

For GPS monitoring, that may include:

• Verified home and work addresses

• Clearly defined inclusion and exclusion zones

• Authorized schedules

• Travel expectations

• Protected party information when applicable

• Specific reporting requirements

• Clear instructions regarding who should be contacted when an event occurs

  
  

For alcohol monitoring, the information may be different, but the principle is the same.

What testing schedule is required?

What constitutes a missed test?

What should happen following a positive result?

Are retests required?

Who receives notification?

How quickly must they receive it?

The device should not be installed first and the operating rules figured out later.

The Client Needs Clarity Too

The supervising agency and monitoring provider are not the only ones who need clear expectations.

The person wearing the device does too.

A participant should understand what is expected of them from the beginning.

When must the device be charged?

What happens if they lose cellular or GPS communication?

Can they travel?

How are schedule changes approved?

What happens if their employment hours change?

Who do they contact if there is a problem with the equipment?

What actions could generate an alert?

Good instructions do not reduce accountability.

They strengthen it.

It is much easier to enforce a condition when everyone can clearly explain what the condition was.

Small Gaps Become Big Problems

Electronic monitoring involves a chain of information.

The court establishes the condition.

The supervising agency communicates the requirement.

The monitoring provider configures the technology.

The participant receives instructions.

The monitoring team reviews information.

Someone ultimately decides how to respond.

A weakness anywhere in that chain can affect everything after it.

An incorrect address can create the wrong zone.

An incomplete schedule can make authorized movement appear unauthorized.

A missing phone number can delay notification.

An unclear reporting protocol can leave people wondering who was supposed to act.

When something serious happens, those seemingly small details become very important.

Technology Should Support the Supervision Plan

One of the biggest mistakes in electronic monitoring is starting with the device instead of the objective.

The first question should not be:

Which monitor are we putting on this person?

The first question should be:

What are we trying to accomplish?

Is the goal to enforce home confinement?

Protect a victim?

Document sobriety?

Restrict access to a particular location?

Support participation in treatment?

Allow someone to remain employed while awaiting trial?

Different objectives require different technology, different configurations, and different response procedures.

Electronic monitoring is most effective when the technology is built around the supervision strategy, not when the supervision strategy is built around the technology.

Everyone Should Know What Happens Next

Before monitoring begins, there is another question that deserves an answer:

What happens when something goes wrong?

Suppose a GPS participant enters an exclusion zone at 2:13 in the morning.

Who receives the notification?

Is law enforcement contacted?

Does the supervising officer need to be called?

Does the protected party receive notification?

What information must be verified before escalation?

What happens if nobody answers?

Those decisions should not be invented during the event.

The same applies to alcohol monitoring, tamper events, equipment problems, missed tests, and other situations that may require action.

Strong monitoring programs establish those expectations ahead of time.

When the event occurs, the monitoring professional can focus on determining what happened and following the established response rather than trying to determine what the system expects them to do.

Installation Is the Beginning of Execution, Not Planning

There is a tendency to think that an electronic monitoring program starts when the bracelet is attached.

It should start earlier.

It starts when the purpose of monitoring is identified.

It continues when conditions are clearly defined.

It becomes operational when zones, schedules, reporting requirements, and response protocols are established.

Only then should the technology become the tool that carries out that plan.

At JSG Monitoring, we have seen repeatedly that the strongest monitoring programs are not necessarily the ones using the most technology.

They are the ones where everyone understands the assignment.

The court knows what it ordered.

The supervising agency knows what it expects.

The monitoring provider knows what to configure and report.

The participant knows the rules.

And when something happens, everyone knows what comes next.

That clarity may not be the most visible part of electronic monitoring.

But it may be the most important.

Because the quality of monitoring is determined long before the first alert ever appears on the screen.

__________________________________________________________________________________

About the Writer

John Hays is President of JSG Monitoring and has extensive experience in electronic monitoring, court services, and community supervision. He works with courts, law enforcement agencies, supervision professionals, and monitoring providers to develop practical electronic monitoring programs focused on accountability, public safety, and reliable decision making.