Electronic Monitoring Is Not a Device. It's a Profession.

When I first entered the electronic monitoring profession nearly two decades ago, I thought the technology was the most important part of the job.

Like most people, I was fascinated by what the equipment could do. We could verify whether someone was home during curfew, determine where they had traveled throughout the day, detect alcohol consumption without a single breath test, and receive alerts within seconds of an important event. At the time, it felt like the technology itself was transforming community supervision.

Years later, after thousands of installations, countless alert reviews, and hundreds of court appearances, I've come to realize something very different.

The technology was never the profession.

It was simply one of the tools the profession uses.

That's an important distinction because I think one of the biggest misconceptions surrounding electronic monitoring today is the belief that successful monitoring begins and ends with the device. It doesn't. Successful monitoring depends on the people, policies, training, judgment, and ethics that surround that device every single day.

The bracelet may be the most visible part of the system, but it is probably the least complicated.

Everything behind it is where the real work happens.

The Device Collects Information. People Make Decisions.

Every electronic monitoring program generates information.

A GPS unit records movement. A continuous alcohol monitor measures alcohol related data. A remote breath testing system records a test result. Monitoring software organizes that information and notifies staff when certain conditions are met.

None of those systems decide what should happen next.

That responsibility belongs to people.

Someone has to determine whether a court order was entered correctly. Someone has to review alerts, evaluate the available information, document what occurred, notify the appropriate agency, preserve records, answer questions from attorneys, explain the facts to a judge, and sometimes testify under oath months or even years after the original event.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts makes this point well in its Location Monitoring Reference Guide, noting that location monitoring is intended to support supervision, not replace it or guarantee compliance.¹

I've often said that electronic monitoring doesn't supervise people.

People supervise people.

Technology simply helps them do it more effectively.

Technology Has Advanced Faster Than the Profession

There is no question that today's equipment is better than it was twenty years ago.

Battery life has improved. GPS accuracy has improved. Alcohol monitoring technology has improved. Reporting platforms are more sophisticated, more reliable, and capable of organizing enormous amounts of information.

Manufacturers deserve tremendous credit for those advancements.

But while devices have continued to evolve, the profession itself hasn't always kept pace.

Across the country, monitoring programs operate under different policies, different terminology, different training requirements, different documentation standards, and different expectations. One jurisdiction may respond to an alert one way, while another jurisdiction responds very differently to the exact same event.

That inconsistency isn't usually caused by technology.

It's caused by the absence of professional standards.

The National Institute of Justice has repeatedly described electronic monitoring as one component of a broader supervision strategy rather than a stand alone solution.² That distinction matters because technology is only as effective as the people responsible for using it.

Professional Judgment Cannot Be Replaced

One of the lessons this profession teaches very quickly is that no two cases are exactly alike.

An alert is rarely just an alert.

It exists within the context of a court order, a person's history, agency policy, equipment settings, investigative findings, and countless other facts that have to be considered before any action is taken.

That requires judgment.

Judgment cannot be programmed into a device.

It comes from training, experience, sound policy, and accountability.

I've worked with outstanding professionals who could explain not only what happened, but why they reached the conclusions they did. I've also seen situations where excellent technology produced poor outcomes simply because the program surrounding it lacked clear procedures, adequate staffing, or consistent documentation.

The lesson has always been the same.

Technology is important.

Professionalism is essential.

Professionalism Shows Up Long Before Court

People often think of testimony as the moment a professional proves their credibility.

In reality, credibility is established long before anyone walks into a courtroom.

It begins with a proper installation.

It continues with accurate documentation.

It requires consistent alert review, thoughtful decision making, secure record keeping, and honest communication throughout the life of the case.

By the time someone is asked to testify, most of the important work has already been done.

The National Institute of Justice has emphasized the importance of developing sound evidence protocols before cases ever reach court because electronic monitoring often involves physical evidence, electronic records, documentation, and witness testimony.³

Good testimony doesn't happen by accident.

It's usually the result of good work performed weeks or months earlier.

Technology Creates Responsibility

As electronic monitoring has become more sophisticated, our responsibilities have grown with it.

Today's systems can collect an extraordinary amount of information about where someone goes, when they travel, and how they move throughout their day. That information can be invaluable to courts and supervising agencies, but it also carries significant responsibility.

Professionals have an obligation to understand the legal authority supporting monitoring, protect sensitive information, maintain accurate records, and ensure that data is only used for legitimate purposes.

Victim safety deserves the same thoughtful approach.

Technology can be an incredibly valuable tool in domestic violence cases and other high risk situations, but it should never create unrealistic expectations. Devices can provide information. They cannot replace communication, planning, coordination, or human response.

The strongest monitoring programs understand that technology supports public safety.

It does not create public safety by itself.

Why NASP Exists

People sometimes ask why another professional association is necessary.

It's a fair question.

My answer has very little to do with devices.

Manufacturers continue to innovate, and that's a good thing. Every improvement in battery life, location accuracy, alcohol detection, software, and reporting benefits the profession.

But technology alone cannot establish professional standards.

It cannot develop ethical guidelines.

It cannot create meaningful certification programs.

It cannot teach someone how to testify, write better documentation, interpret complex situations, protect privacy, communicate with victims, or exercise sound professional judgment.

Those responsibilities belong to us.

That's why NASP was created.

Not to represent one company.

Not to promote one manufacturer.

Not to argue that one technology is better than another.

NASP exists because electronic monitoring has grown into a profession that deserves the same commitment to education, standards, ethics, and continuous improvement that we expect from every other mature profession within the criminal justice system.

The future of electronic monitoring will not be determined solely by who builds the next generation of devices.

It will be determined by who develops the next generation of professionals.

Professionals who are well trained.

Professionals who understand the law.

Professionals who document their work carefully.

Professionals who communicate honestly.

Professionals who protect privacy, support victims, respect due process, and never lose sight of the fact that every alert represents a real person and a real responsibility.

We've spent the last forty years improving devices.

It's time to spend the next forty improving the profession.

Notes

1. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Location Monitoring Reference Guide (March 2020).

2. J. Redden, M. Planty, and J. Russo, Location Tracking Systems for Community Supervision (Criminal Justice Testing and Evaluation Consortium, with support from the National Institute of Justice, 2023).

3. Theodore D. Robinson, "Develop Sound Offender Tracking Evidence Protocols Before Cases Reach the Courtroom," Corrections Today, March/April 2015.

About the Author

John Hays is the President of the National Association of Service Providers (NASP) and a longtime leader in the electronic monitoring industry. Passionate about professionalism, education, and collaboration, he helps advance NASP's mission of providing the industry with a unified voice and promoting best practices nationwide.