The Political Economy of GPS Ankle Monitors and Drug Patches

Does the release of jail inmates via bail and GPS Ankle Monitors really save the county money?

There has been a push at the BCC to provide alternatives for Judges to utilize, if they so choose, to sending people to our Jail.  For those Judges that want to control actions/locations of offenders but who are also cognizant of the costs of incarceration locally, we have a county program to pay for GPS ankle monitors and/or drug patches.  The program was grant-funded, but the funds from the grant recently dried up.

According to one Judge with whom I spoke that wanted to put a person on a GPS ankle monitor and drug patch--he was told that "There is no more money available for this"

"That's ridiculous" I told him.  "I'll fund it myself if necessary--out of my discretionary funds if need be."

So I asked the question of relevant staff.  I mean, if the average cost of incarceration is $72 daily but an ankle monitor and drug patch combo is only roughly $10 dollars per day--is it not a no-brainer to fund the patches and GPS monitors to save money at the jail?

Apparently, the answer is not so simple.

The actual savings realized when a prisoner (one of 1500 or so) is removed from our jail is not actually $72 daily---it is more like $3.00 daily-for the cost of food.  This is because the jail's hard, fixed costs are high in order to service a population so high--and no appreciable reduction in total fixed costs will be realized by releasing a single prisoner (except in cases where the prisoner requires high-dollar medicines or medical treatments).  It would take several hundred fewer to realistically reduce fixed costs, close a pod, reduce staffing, etc.

So in the big picture, reducing one prisoner saves very little money for the jail, but actually costs the county money out of a different fund for the patches, ankle monitors, and electronic surveillance.  And there is not currently a system that compels payment for these services by the released prisoners, nor is there currently a means-test or similar method in place to ensure those that can afford to pay for the monitoring actually pay.

According to one staffer with whom I spoke:  "The grant [for GPS and patches] was for the purpose of providing funding for the patches to reduce our jail population." she continued "But the program did not reduce the jail population--our population actually remained consistent and we spent a lot


 more money on patches and ankle monitors beyond what we received in the grant.  When I report back to the Federal Government that we did not reduce our population but that we did use all the grant money for the monitors--I think that will not be well received, this isn't the outcome they are looking for"

"What happened--why did this not work?" I asked.

"This is only speculation, but I think once the word was out that we had the grant funding to cover the costs--Judges that would have released these offenders anyway, on bond, also ordered the monitors and drug patches as well--as an extra measure of deterrent perhaps?"

So the bottom line is we are still paying--even though the grant funding has dried up, and that message has been forwarded back through the proper channels to the judges.  But there is a cost to this program, a real cost.

"Between Oct-17 and May-18, we have expensed $126,032.64 on electronic monitoring (GPS and alcohol combined) and collected $48,850.46 in payments.  We h ave expensed $95,006.05 on drug patches (pre-trial, misdemeanor, and state probation offenders ordered at our expense combined).  These costs do not reflect staff time and only encompass the invoices due for supplies/services." related this same staff member.

So the takeaway from my perspective is that this whole process needs to be examined, and the ball is already rolling on that I am told. 

Meanwhile, we will fund these patches and GPS monitors for the Judges that want to use these services--because we need the space in our jail and we really don't have a choice if the Judge says so. 

But I want to work to find a way for the offender to pay for these services whenever possible--we need to make this process more efficient for the taxpayers.