Technical problems plagued the satellite monitoring of certain offenders on probation during its first year of implementation, a panel looking into the program was told Nov. 6.
But panel members were optimistic that the technology can only get better. Even current capability is promising, they said.
“We knew ‘false positives’ would be an issue,” said Sen. Jim Waring, R-7, author of the law that created the GPS monitoring of people convicted of dangerous crimes against children, including sex offenders, who are on probation.
“We didn’t know how big of an issue. Now we know it’s a pretty big issue,” he said.
Department of Corrections data presented during the Joint Legislative Study Committee on GPS Monitoring showed that for fiscal year 2007, there were 35,601 “false positive” violations caused by movement in and out of dead zones, power outages, phone lines getting unplugged, or dead batteries on tracking devices.
Only 463 reports were confirmed to be violations, such as tampering with the GPS unit or entering places offenders were not allowed. That means approximately 98 percent of reports were caused by technical problems, not actual violations.
During the period, the DOC placed 140 offenders on GPS monitoring.
Data from county probation offices also echoed the DOC’s findings. About 70 percent of violations were also “false positives.”
“It is a major problem,” Barbara Broderick, chief probation officer of the Superior Court of Arizona’s Adult Probation Department, told Arizona Capitol Times.
But Broderick said she believes the technology will catch up to the problem. Her estimation is that within the next three years, the glitches would be addressed.
The technology works much like a cell phone, Kathy Waters, director of Adult Probation Services of the Arizona Supreme Court, further explained.
It’s a new program, she said. Everybody — the offender, the probation officer, the monitoring analyst — has to get used to it. Then there’s the technology itself, she said.
“There are some geographic problems and technical problems just like we have with our cell phones,” she said. “When you drive by and you have a tower that gives you a dropped call or a mountain. Law enforcement has the same issue with all emergency systems.”
“I think as the technology is refined, you will see those issues go down,” she said.
Daniel Graff-Radford, a representative of GPS company Omnilink, said their system has the capability to immediately send information, including the photo and name of a sex offender, to authorities when that offender steps onto school grounds, for example, where he or she is not allowed. He said the system could also reduce “false positives” by about 80 percent. Maricopa County is set to partner with Omnilink for a project that would target domestic violence offenders.
Earlier, lawmakers were worried that the allocated $1.5 million for the program would run out. Now they learned there would be sufficient funds to fully implement it at least through next year.
The DOC and the Arizona Supreme Court each received $750,000 to implement GPS monitoring, and DOC spent $151,000 to monitor 140 offenders in fiscal year 2007.
The department expects to spend about $300,000 next year.
The Arizona Supreme Court, on the other hand, spent about $270,000 during the first eight months of the program and expects to spend $640,000 next fiscal year.
Waring said the only problem would be if lawmakers slashed the GPS budget next session.
Probation officers also pointed out that the number of people placed on GPS monitoring is cumulative, and they said that is likely to result in increased costs in the years to come.
In Maricopa County, for example, probation officers estimate that 201 people would be required to wear a GPS bracelet next year, up from 54 as of Oct. 31.
In 2006, Arizona required GPS monitoring on persons convicted of dangerous crimes against children, such as sex offenders, while on probation.
Since then, GPS monitoring has become a part of counties’ strategy in supervising particular offenders on probation. GPS guidelines have been incorporated into the general supervision guidelines.
GPS monitoring is a complex and layered system, according to Waters.
Guidelines are individualized for each offender. There are different alert levels. An example of a high alert would be if someone tries to cut off the GPS device. The response to an alert also depends upon a host of information, such as the offense level of a sex offender.
Normally, the initial response would be to try to determine what caused the alert. It could be a dead spot, or how long the offender stays on the dead spot, according to Waters.
One recurring question is: Is it a deterrent to crime≠ Related to that, does it reduce recidivism≠
“I don’t know if we have enough data right now to draw those conclusions,” Waters said. She pointed out that research already shows that sex offenders have a very low rate of recidivism. Waters also said even without the GPS monitoring, the supervision strategy adopted by Maricopa County has been successful.
The consensus among probation officers is that the GPS device is a valuable tool in probation supervision.
“I believe that predators will continue to prey,” said Broderick when asked if GPS monitoring is a deterrent. “I think we can act more swiftly when we see an individual basically tampering or breaking the bracelet, but then they are already gone and they are free in the streets. I believe the technology will assist us. Now whether it will stop a predator from preying, I don’t think a device does that. I think changing the person’s cognitive thinking may do that.”
She added: “But it certainly makes it easier — and this is where I think it is a very valuable tool — to detect, it makes it easier to apprehend, and it makes it easier for us to prosecute because we have evidence of where the individual was. We have stronger cases and we are faster.”
On the one hand, it also helps a person on the GPS device to prove that he is innocent of another accusation because the system creates an electronic data of where he was at a particular time, according to Broderick.
The Maricopa County probation official cautioned the panel against hastily expanding the program to include other types of offenders.
“I just don’t think we should want to expand it too rapidly because the technology isn’t where it needs to be,” Broderick said.
Also, Broderick suggested caution in including all sex offenders in the program. Maricopa County, for example, has about 1,700 people who had been convicted and on probation for some type of sex offense.
Not all fit the pedophile-type of offender. Some were convicted for doing silly things, like indecent exposure at a football game, she said.
“So we just need to make sure that we are getting the right individual on this, and then I think it really is great.
On top of that, the technical problems facing authorities could be enormous if all 1,700 sex offenders are put on GPS monitoring, she said.
Waters made another point: “We don’t want to set the public up for a false sense or the Legislature to have a false sense of security about this — that this is the cure all, fix all of preventing crime.”
Looking ahead, Rep. Sam Crump, R-6, a member of the panel, said citizen groups could be asking the Legislature to give the public access to GPS monitoring information.
“I can see certain parts of the public saying, now that this information is available, I want real time access,” he said. People could clamor to get alerts when they are at McDonalds with their kids, for example
, and when a sex offender walks into the fast-food chain, he said. "That's not far-fetched based on the technology we have seen," he said.
Crump said he is not for or against the idea. “But it's an issue, absolutely,” he said.
During the hearing, the panel was reminded that parents must be vigilant. Ultimately, prevention lies with them.
The GPS panel has signaled potential courses of action, and one prevailing sentiment appears to be that the program should be continued.
The law’s architect, Waring, was excited to learn about new technological developments.
“They got it the point now where they can literally — if somebody with this device on goes to a school — send an immediate warning to a police officer or principal or whoever… with a picture of the perpetrator (and) accurate information of where they are at the school. I mean that is invaluable,” he said.
“Yes, it is not perfect. We knew that going in,” he added. “Realistically, I think the expectations of the committee were met.”