Home      Login

Abstract: 

Two prominent industry leaders explore why electronic monitoring (EM) has not achieved the scale or impact that its supporters, technologies and early reforms promised. EM is presented as a versatile tool that can serve three rationales across time: punitive (responding to past offending), protective (managing current risk and compliance) and supportive (enhancing rehabilitation and desistance). Despite global diffusion and substantial technical advances—from more accurate location tracking to reliable alcohol monitoring—EM remains only moderately adopted as a mainstream alternative to custody or as a standard response for high-profile groups such as sex offenders and domestic violence perpetrators. The authors explain this “EM gap” through an “EM stakeholders triangle” linking three key constituencies: policymakers, operational actors (vendors and monitoring centers), and probation and rehabilitation services. Policymakers and operators tend to value EM’s cost efficiency and compliance gains. Probation stakeholders, by contrast, emphasize rehabilitation, are wary of net-widening and over-punitive uses, and remain unconvinced by mixed empirical evidence on EM’s long-term impact on reoffending. Concerns about privacy, stigma and the erosion of human, relational work also dampen enthusiasm. The article proposes closing the gap through rehabilitation-oriented EM: sustained dialogue with probation professionals, co-design of EM tools that directly support behavior change and skills development, and stronger research evidence. It suggests three complementary routes—technical refinement, data-driven innovation and a paradigm shift toward integrated, intervention-focused EM—to realize EM’s full potential as a public-safety and rehabilitation resource.

Keywords: Electronic Monitoring (EM); EM Industry Growth; Rehabilitative Applications of EM

Affiliations:  1: Allied Universal; 2: Attenti.