Latest News

Data Transparency around the use of Electronic Monitoring in Illinois: Policy Statement in Support of HB 0386

On August 9, 2019, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed House Bill (HB) 0386 into law. The legislation, which will go into effect on January 1, 2020, requires that the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and the Prisoner Review Board (PRB) report on how they use GPS monitoring and electronic home detention as a condition of release. Every year, IDOC and the PRB place thousands of people on electronic monitoring and home detention,[1] but there is very little information available on who is or is not being placed into these programs and why or how these decisions are being made. Without that data, it is nearly impossible to understand what impact, if any, electronic home detention has on public safety.

Electronic monitoring (EM) systems are a form of imprisonment that use tracking technology to monitor individuals accused or convicted of crimes. The two most common forms of electronic monitoring are GPS monitoring systems and radio-frequency (RF) units.[2] GPS technologies continuously track offenders, identifying their movements and whereabouts in real time, and tend to be in the form of ankle bracelets or cellphones; RF units are typically worn around ankles or wrists and monitor a person’s location in relation to a home-based transmitting device to enforce home confinement or curfew regulations.[3] Proponents of EM argue that it protects the general public by ensuring that “criminals” are tracked or confined to their homes. However, there is no empirical data on whether the use of electronic monitoring on parolees who have already served their prison sentences has any positive effect on public safety.

PRB and IDOC officials claimed during legislative hearings that they sought to use electronic home detention and GPS monitoring only when it was strictly necessary to protect the public in the cases of very serious crimes or when it was required by statute. Further investigation into the program, though, shows that we need clearer answers on who is being confined to their homes after release from prison and what factors influence the decision to place a returning citizen on a monitoring program. From the data IDOC and PRB have provided, the most common charge to receive an electronic monitoring order after release from prison is simple illegal gun possession. About 60% of people charged with gun possession were placed on electronic home detention. In contrast, about 50% of those who had served time for murder, and 40% of those who had served time for sex offenses, were placed on monitoring. According to the Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council (SPAC), the three most frequent justifications to impose EM as a condition of mandatory supervised release are “a long criminal history,” “either a current or previous firearm offense,” or a Class X felony, but use of EM is discretionary and not universal across similar cases.[4] Similarly, as stated by the SPAC, “the information listed on the orders did not provide enough information to explain why the differences occurred.”[5]

This lack of transparency is part of the reason Chicago Appleseed and the Chicago Council of Lawyers advocated for the passage of House Bill 0386. As explained[6] by our Senior Policy Analyst and Staff Attorney Sarah Staudt:

We were struck that the PRB struggled to answer some pretty basic questions about who was using their program, why they were putting certain people on electronic monitoring, how they were making those decisions, and what the results were.

Such discretion without any mandated transparency or subsequent accountability is of great concern because it makes it impossible to understand the impact EM has on crime rates, recidivism, or why it disproportionately affects lower-income families, individuals, and communities of color. It is particularly concerning that electronic home detention is most often being used for non-forcible weapons possessions cases, considering young black men are disproportionately prosecuted for weapons possession.[7] There is minimal empirical data regarding EM’s effectiveness. The few studies that do exist show, at most, a modest effect on recidivism for some subsets of offenders.[8] However, the consequences of home confinement are severe and can significantly alter individual and familial wellbeing, preventing returning citizens from finding work, caring for their children, and reintegrating into society in general. Continuing to confine a returning citizen to their home after they have already served their entire sentence should only be done when there is strong evidence that that continued detention is necessary.

This lack of data on the individual, communal, and societal implications of EM makes it nearly impossible to adequately analyze the costs and benefits—especially in comparison to the personal consequences this kind of extra supervision inevitably places on the individual being monitored. Electronic monitoring as a condition of MSR can be so onerous that it essentially becomes a prison inside a person’s own home and thus, it further perpetuates many of the detrimental collateral consequences that already come with a conviction. Instead of being released under typical supervision, EM extends a person’s sentence even after they have finished their mandated time in custody. For instance, sometimes individuals are completely confined to their homes, making it impossible to get a job, attend substance abuse support groups, take classes, or pick up their children from school. These barriers severely limit a person’s job, home, and educational prospects (among other things) and make it extremely difficult – if not impossible – to integrate back into a normal society—all because of what appears to be nothing more than an arbitrary decision from the Prisoner Review Board.

House Bill 0386 mandates that IDOC and the PRB collect and report data such as: race, ethnicity, gender, age, incarceration history, and general residential information of every individual on EM; the total number of people being monitored throughout the year; the total number and length of time of discretionary monitoring orders issued by the PRB; data related to any violations of one’s EM terms; and more. These reporting requirements are in place to collect evidence as a means to determine if these are “strategies and policies that can result in a significant reduction in recidivism rates” and to “ensure that State and local agencies direct their resources to services and programming that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism and reintegrating offenders into the locality.”[9]

There is always more that can be done to ensure that our carceral system is equitable, fair, and using evidence-based practices that promote community wellbeing, but this legislation helps pave the way toward greater transparency and accountability and is a step in the right direction toward a system that promotes justice over punishment.

[1] See https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/07/15/illinois-puts-ankle-monitors-on-thousands-of-people-now-it-has-to-figure-out-exactly-who-gets-tracked-and-why

[2] See https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2016/09/use-of-electronic-offender-tracking-devices-expands-sharply

[3] See https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2016/09/use-of-electronic-offender-tracking-devices-expands-sharply

[4] See https://www.challengingecarceration.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SPAC-Research-Briefing-State-Use-of-EM-2019-FINAL-1.pdf

[5] See https://www.challengingecarceration.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SPAC-Research-Briefing-State-Use-of-EM-2019-FINAL-1.pdf

[6] See https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/07/15/illinois-puts-ankle-monitors-on-thousands-of-people-now-it-has-to-figure-out-exactly-who-gets-tracked-and-why

[7] See https://www.cookcountystatesattorney.org/sites/default/files/files/documents/ccsao_2017_data_report_180220.pdf and https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf

[8] https://www.challengingecarceration.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SPAC-Research-Briefing-State-Use-of-EM-2019-FINAL-1.pdf

[9] http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=101-0231