In the coming days, we will be introducing a resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC) to conduct a comprehensive study on the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration in Pennsylvania.

Electronic monitoring technologies—such as GPS tracking, continuous alcohol monitoring, and home confinement systems—are used across the Commonwealth to supervise individuals in the community in lieu of incarceration. These tools are currently employed in a variety of contexts, including pretrial release, probation, parole, and county intermediate punishment programs. Pennsylvania law already authorizes their use under several statutory provisions, including 42 Pa.C.S.   9763, and 9804, as well as 61 Pa.C.S. Chapters 61 and 62 governing state and county supervision. Courts may also impose electronic monitoring as a condition of bail under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.

While electronic monitoring is widely used, policymakers lack a comprehensive, statewide understanding of how these technologies are deployed, how effective they are, and whether opportunities exist to improve or expand their use. Rigorous evidence from other jurisdictions suggests that, when used appropriately, electronic monitoring can enhance public safety outcomes while reducing correctional costs. However, the Commonwealth has never undertaken a holistic evaluation of its own practices.

Our resolution directs the LBFC to examine:

• Where and how electronic monitoring is currently used as an alternative to incarceration.
• Barriers or constraints that limit its use.
• Opportunities to expand or improve its application.
• Comparative supervision lengths for individuals on electronic monitoring versus other forms of community supervision.
• Recidivism outcomes for individuals supervised with electronic monitoring compared to incarcerated populations and other community supervision groups.
• The comparative costs to the Commonwealth, counties, and individuals.
• Methods used to evaluate electronic monitoring technologies.
• The structure of contracts and agreements for providing electronic monitoring services.

The LBFC will also be required to consult with a broad range of stakeholders, including the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC), the Department of Corrections, the Pennsylvania Parole Board, county probation and parole departments, the judiciary, district attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement, service providers, victim advocacy organizations, and criminal justice policy experts.

This study will provide the General Assembly with the information necessary to make informed decisions about the role electronic monitoring should play in our criminal justice system. As we continue working toward policies that promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and use taxpayer dollars responsibly, a clear understanding of current practices is essential.

We invite you to join us in sponsoring this bipartisan resolution to ensure Pennsylvania has the data and analysis needed to guide future reforms.