The article can be downloaded at the bottom of the page
ELECTRONIC MONITORING: THE INITIAL STAGES OF THE PROGRAM
Prof. Israel Barak-Glantz
Chief Scientist and Director, Bureau of the Chief Scientist
Ministry of Public Security
Introduction
The electronic monitoring (EM) program for detainees released on bail and for prisoners released on parole was launched in early May 2005.
The purpose of this paper is to report on the progress made during the first year of the program's implementation (May 2005 thru April 2006) and to provide an additional basis for drawing conclusions regarding the program's continuation. In its pilot run, the program was applied to detainees released on bail and, only as of mid-January 2006, it is also being applied to prisoners released on bail .
The EM program is based on an operational plan drawn up by the Ministry of Public Security in cooperation with the various agencies involved. The Bureau of the Chief Scientist in the Ministry of Public Security, which actually initiated the program, has overall responsibility for the program's management, while a small operational office implements it on a daily basis. Hashmira Security Technologies and its subsidiary, Moked 99, fit the detainees and parolees with wireless electronic foot bracelets, carry out the continual monitoring in the field, and remove the equipment at the end of the supervision period.
The program was introduced gradually – initially in the areas of jurisdiction of the Tel Aviv and Haifa Magistrate's Courts. In July 2005, the program was expanded to include the country's entire judicial system.
Electronic Monitoring in Numbers: To view the 2006 major statistics for the Electronic Monitoring Program, click here.
Statistics on the operation of the system
A number of important points emerge from the analysis of the statistics on the operation of the system. First, Moked 99's alert center received many alerts. From our standpoint, this is good news, because it proves that the system is very sensitive and that the technology's capacity for issuing alerts for any deviation from the planned routine for the monitored individual is considerable. Second, it is clear that, the greater the number of persons monitored, the greater the number of alerts. Third, regarding the nature of the alerts, the following should be noted: If, for example, we analyze the month of December 2005, we will find, based on the figures of the security company, that 2,175 alerts were received by the company's alert center. These calls can be broken down as follows: 1,841 were the result of technical situations or events (such as the repositioning of the receiver, an electric power cut, and the disconnection of the body/belt sensor) and 334 were the result of exceptional situations, such as an unauthorized exit from the place being monitored and failure to return on time from a “monitoring window.” It should be stressed that, as indicated by the table below, nearly all the violations were of a duration of no longer than one to eight minutes and thus do not constitute actual violations of the monitoring arrangement.
Violations
The following points should be noted with regard to violations of the monitoring arrangement:
- Nearly all the violations were of a duration of no longer than one to eight minutes and thus do not constitute actual violations of the monitoring arrangement.
- On January 1, 2006, changes were introduced in the definition of “violation.”
- Generally, there were no actual or significant violations of the monitoring regime.
- Many of the slight disciplinary violations due to absence were the result of leaving prematurely from the place being monitored or a failure to return on time (in both cases, the violation was of a duration of only a few minutes); or an “administrative” violation, chiefly due to the monitored person's leaving the place being monitored to be present in a courtroom session without having given advance notice (and thus, without having arranged for the orderly opening of a “monitoring window”).
Table 1: Alerts received by security company's alert center
May 2005 - April 2006
Monitoring days
Since the initiation of the electronic monitoring program and up to the end of April 2006, there were 13,195 monitoring days for detainees released on bail and 85 days for three paroled prisoners, all under electronic surveillance. These days constituted a savings – in terms of cost – of 36 years of detention in a detention center. Furthermore, as indicated by the table immediately below, there has been a steady acceleration in referrals by the judicial system of detainees for EM. For example, the number of persons referred for EM in December 2005 was double the number of persons referred for EM in November 2005.
Table 2: Number of monitoring days, May 2005 - April 2006
Completion of EM supervision
During the period in question, 43 persons completed their EM regime: 35 were sent to prison, correctional boarding schools or were again placed in detention, seven were sent to detention alternatives, and one person did not return from a monitoring window. These figures support the general feeling that the selection of candidates for EM was well thought out and appropriate and that the selection process does not constitute a 'widening of the net' of social control.
During the period in question, the program's directorate provided training sessions throughout Israel that included mixed forums of magistrates, juvenile magistrates, district judges (from all of the country's judicial districts), senior police officers (from all of the country's police districts), the criminal case offices in the country's courts of law, juvenile and adult probation services, prosecutors and the public defender's office.
Evaluation and recommendations
The period in question is too short, of course, for the released prisoners in the program. Nonetheless, it is long enough to draw some interim conclusions. It should be pointed out that, at the time of this report's compilation (the end of April 2006), the program is being operated for more than 132 monitored individuals simultaneously. There seems to be significant progress as far as recognition of the program is concerned, and the judicial system is making extensive use of EM. We believe that the program is operating effectively and successfully and that the present figures indicate the increasing reliance on EM in Israel.
Applying the conclusions that can be drawn even from this short report can help improve the system's operations and its anticipated results. To read the list of conclusions and improvements being implemented, click here.
Summary
The initial trial operation of the EM program has been very successful. The agencies that are partners in the program's operation function satisfactorily, although there is the need for improvements in a number of areas, especially the program's promotion among the relevant partners. Problems are solved “as the mechanism continues to move ahead” and the existing resources used for the problem solving are limited. It can be noted that, generally speaking, the selection of candidates for EM is correct, and so far the number of monitored individuals who have been found to be unsuitable for the program and who must be returned to a detention facility has been very low. The chief signs of the program's success will be an increase in the number of persons referred to EM and the maintenance of a tighter and more effective monitoring system.
In our opinion, it appears that each day is bringing further progress in this direction.