Electronic Monitoring Doesn't Fail. Poor Monitoring Programs Do.

By John HaysPresident, National Association of Service Providers (NASP)

Yesterday, I had the privilege of representing the National Association of Service Providers (NASP) during a national webinar hosted on the American Probation and Parole Association's (APPA) educational platform. Speaking to probation, parole, and community corrections professionals from across the country, we discussed one of the most important issues facing our profession: Matching Monitoring Technologies to Offender Risk Levels.

The conversation reinforced a principle that those of us in the electronic monitoring industry have understood for years.

Successful supervision is not determined by the device someone wears. It is determined by whether agencies employ the right technology, for the right individual, supported by the right policies, staffing, and accountability.

When a high profile crime occurs involving someone under electronic monitoring, the headlines often focus on the technology.

"The offender was wearing a GPS monitor."

But the better question is whether the monitoring program failed.

Were alerts being reviewed?

Were exclusion zones properly established?

Were violations investigated and acted upon?

Did the agency have the resources and procedures necessary to respond?

Technology generates information. People create accountability. Without trained professionals reviewing alerts and enforcing supervision conditions, even the most advanced technology cannot accomplish its purpose.

Technology Should Match the Supervision Objective

One of the biggest misconceptions in our industry is that every monitoring technology provides the same level of accountability.

It doesn't.

GPS ankle monitors, continuous alcohol monitoring, remote breath testing, phone-based applications, and emerging wearable technologies all serve different purposes. Before selecting any technology, agencies should first ask one question:

What behavior are we trying to monitor or change?

Only then should they determine which technology best supports that objective.

The goal is not simply to use the least restrictive technology. The goal is to use the least restrictive technology that still provides the accountability necessary to accomplish the supervision objective and protect public safety.

Technology should be driven by risk, not convenience, marketing, or price.

Don't Buy a Device. Build a Program.

Even the best technology cannot overcome poor operational practices.

Real time alerts have little value if no one is reviewing them.

Alcohol monitoring loses its effectiveness if missed tests carry no consequences.

Location restrictions become meaningless if prohibited locations have never been properly configured.

Successful monitoring programs combine:

• Appropriate technology

• Clearly defined policies

• Well trained personnel

• Consistent alert review

• Meaningful accountability

When those pieces work together, electronic monitoring becomes one of the most effective tools available to support community supervision.

Why NASP Exists

These are exactly the conversations the National Association of Service Providers was created to lead.

Our mission is not to promote one manufacturer or one technology. Our mission is to advance professionalism, establish best practices, and provide agencies with the education they need to make informed decisions that improve supervision outcomes and enhance public safety.

That responsibility extends beyond service providers. It is equally important that judges, magistrates, probation and parole officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other judicial officials understand the capabilities and limitations of today's monitoring technologies. Better decisions are made when those ordering electronic monitoring understand what each technology can and cannot accomplish. By equipping decision makers with the knowledge to match the right technology to the right supervision objective, we can help agencies maximize the effectiveness of electronic monitoring while strengthening accountability and protecting public safety.

As technology continues to evolve, agencies deserve more than product demonstrations and marketing claims. They deserve practical guidance from experienced professionals who understand both the capabilities and limitations of today's monitoring technologies.

That is why NASP exists.

We exist to educate.

We exist to establish best practices.

We exist to strengthen our industry through collaboration, professionalism, and accountability.

Because public safety deserves more than simply deploying technology.

It deserves getting it right.

If you believe electronic monitoring should be guided by evidence, best practices, and professional standards, we invite you to join NASP. Together, we can build a stronger industry, better equip the professionals responsible for ordering and administering electronic monitoring, and better protect the communities we serve.