This article is based on research conducted as a part of the CA POST Command College. It is a futures study of a particular emerging issue of relevance to law enforcement. Its purpose is not to predict the future; rather, to project a variety of possible scenarios useful for planning and action in anticipation of the emerging landscape facing policing organizations.
The article was created using the futures forecasting process of Command College and its outcomes. Managing the future means influencing it — creating, constraining and adapting to emerging trends and events in a way that optimizes the opportunities and minimizes the threats of relevance to the profession.
By Captain Logan Stonehouse
The management of county jails plays a critical role in maintaining community safety. Historically, jails have been viewed as a place to house inmates for short-term sentences; however, with recent legislative changes, county jails in California are now required to accommodate inmates for longer, multiple-year terms. Those changes have led to increased risks for both inmates and officers, rising operational costs and an increase in litigation against counties for reasons related to inmate safety and welfare.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has approved the closures of three state prisons since 2019, with more potentially coming. [1] With the elimination of that bed space, inmates who could have been housed in those facilities may be pushed to counties for supervision. Thus, counties will inherit responsibility for more offenders and for longer periods of time. As the inmate population grows, so too does the amount of health care they require. Rather than continuing to provide services in traditional ways, these county facilities need solutions to provide health and safety to inmates at lower costs with greater efficiency.
Wearable technologies have emerged as a potential solution. Wearable devices can offer solutions to enhance inmate monitoring and safety, improve officer safety, reduce health care costs and even reduce litigation. According to the legislative analyst’s office in California, the combined costs of transporting and guarding one inmate for medical purposes can exceed $2,000 a day. On the other hand, employing wearables to monitor an inmate’s health can be as little as $10 a day. [2] As society moves forward, it’s worth asking how wearable technologies can reshape safety and security in county jails.
Counties absorb the burden
The state-to-local incarceration movement in California started over 10 years ago under Governor Jerry Brown as the state wrestled with overcrowding in prisons and ways to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 Brown v. Plata decision, which required the state to reduce its prison population by approximately 46,000. [3] This forced California’s leaders to confront not only its excess of prisoners but also that more than 90% of prisoners ultimately return to their communities and are unprepared to be productive members of society. [3] In response to this ruling, the California legislature passed the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011, which shifted responsibility for the incarceration and supervision of low-level, nonviolent offenders from state prisons to California’s 58 counties. It also funded counties to handle their increased responsibilities, create alternatives to incarceration and assist successful reentry. [3]
Changes in sentencing structures since that time have introduced new challenges, particularly for smaller, rural counties that lack the funding to expand or retrofit their facilities. The increase in inmate numbers and longer sentences have caused many jail facilities throughout California to grapple with unsafe conditions for inmates and staff alike. The lack of modern infrastructure and resources to handle these shifts has made county jails hotbeds for injuries, deaths and lawsuits. Reports from oversight agencies have repeatedly pointed to problems in individual jails and the state board that oversees them. Newsom pledged almost five years ago that the state would take a stronger hand to prevent deaths in the jail systems run by California sheriffs. Yet those death numbers have continued to rise, hitting a high of 215 in 2022. [4]
In addition to these safety risks, employee retention and morale have decreased. Correctional deputies are often overworked by increased overtime, much of it due to the tasks of tracking inmate movements and maintaining safety. The adverse impacts to staff’s health and well-being are especially true in smaller counties, where low staffing levels further increase workloads. A solution is needed not just to ensure the safety of inmates but also to protect the well-being of officers and reduce the growing number of lawsuits
The good news is we can change the way jails are managed with wearable technologies.
Top-tier wearables offer promising solutions
Wearable technologies offer promising solutions for addressing the many issues faced by California’s county jails. These technologies allow for real-time monitoring of inmates’ locations, biometrics and health. Guardian RFID, Talitrix, Vivalink and iSmarch are just a few of the technologies and providers available. Similar technologies such as those from Reassurance Solutions are also options, and more may emerge as technology advances.
Guardian RFID, for instance, delivers a wide range of inmate tracking solutions that include monitoring movement, medication distribution and compliance, and even inmate identification. J1 and J2 smartwatches from iSmarch are specifically designed for use in jails, offering features such as precise indoor positioning, tamper detection and health monitoring. [5] Talitrix utilizes a system where sensors are embedded into the walls of jail facilities, using radio frequencies that communicate with wristbands issued to the inmates. Talitrix and Georgia’s Fulton County Sheriff’s Office claim the system can help make understaffed jails more efficient and increase overall safety, while monitoring heart rates can alert staff to potential health problems or suicide attempts. [6]
Vivalink offers devices like ECG patches that provide real-time monitoring of vital signs, enabling timely medical responses and reducing the need for physical visits. This helps address security concerns, logistical challenges and high costs, providing a cost-effective way to manage chronic illnesses and emergencies. [7] A similar technology comes from Reassurance Solutions. Not technically wearable, it utilizes a sensor mounted in the wall or ceiling that can measure an inmate’s heart and respiratory rates. This contact-free approach uses radar technology to monitor vital signs via the tiny vibrations in inmates’ bodies created by the movement of their heart and lungs. [8]
These technologies could enable jails to implement more effective security protocols, enhance safety and even reduce the workload on staff, which could significantly improve morale and retention. Some of the wearables mentioned above can alert officers to potential emergencies like medical crises and biometric changes associated with life-threatening conditions. This early detection allows for faster response times that could save lives. Additionally, automated systems that track inmate movements could free officers from manual logging tasks, reducing their workload and minimizing errors.
Implementation poses challenges
While wearable technologies promise numerous benefits, their implementation is not without challenges. Privacy concerns are at the forefront of the debate over wearable technologies in jails. Inmates, although incarcerated, retain certain constitutional rights. The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishment, which includes inhumane treatment or violations of dignity. There could be arguments that some of these rights could be violated by implementing wearables for monitoring.
One element of this is that devices made for the carceral setting are made from hard plastic and are significantly more cumbersome than consumer smartwatches. Wearing hard, plastic, unremovable devices for prolonged periods can cause health problems that include swelling, numbness, bruising and blistering. These devices often combine GPS monitoring and biometric data tracking, which comes at the expense of the incarcerated person’s privacy. [9] If they are to be employed, practices to monitor inmates must be crafted carefully to avoid infringing on their privacy of health and behavioral data. Implementing wearable devices in jails would likely require policy and procedural changes to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations, including those pertaining to inmate rights and health care. Jails would need to include legal counsel to navigate those complex hurdles.
Beyond health and privacy rights, another primary concern is the cost of implementation. For many counties, especially smaller, rural ones, the initial investment in wearable technologies may seem high. The costs associated with purchasing devices, updating infrastructure and training staff could be substantial. These costs would depend on the size of the facility and how many inmates are housed, among other variables. However, the long-term savings from these technologies could far outweigh the initial costs. Counties across California have faced significant financial burdens from lawsuits related to inmate injuries, deaths and other safety incidents. By investing in wearable technologies that improve safety and reduce the likelihood of such incidents, counties could potentially save millions in legal fees and settlements.
Moreover, the cost savings from increased operational efficiency could help offset the initial investment. Over time, wearable technologies could lead to safer jail environments, reduced staffing needs and fewer injuries, further driving down costs.
Recommendations to implement wearable technology in jails
According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s “Best Practices Guide: Acquisition of New Technology,” there are three steps to successful acquiring new technology:
- An acquisition plan
- Acquisition and delivery
- Implementation and training. [10]
Furthermore, there are six main steps to effectively plan technology acquisition:
- Build a foundation.
- Conduct a needs analysis.
- Create a project plan.
- Acquire the technology.
- Implement the technology .
- Maintain the technology. [11]
According to the Standish Group, an IT research advisory firm, 66% of technology projects end in partial or total failure. [12] Therefore, to ensure the successful adoption of wearable technologies, it is essential for counties and law enforcement agencies to take a strategic approach. The following are some key points for reference.
- Involve stakeholders in decision-making: Before adopting wearable technologies, counties should involve line staff, legal counsel and other key stakeholders in the decision-making process. This will ensure the chosen technologies meet the needs of the facility while addressing privacy and legal concerns. There may also be hurdles with purchasing and governmental rules with competitive procurement.
- Vendor selection: It is crucial for agencies to carefully select technology vendors that offer comprehensive solutions tailored to the unique needs of jails. Partnering with vendors who provide ongoing support and system updates will help ensure the technology remains effective for the long term.
- Pilot testing: Agencies should consider running pilot programs to test different wearable technologies before full-scale implementation. This will allow them to identify any issues with the technologies, gather feedback from staff and ensure the technologies integrate seamlessly with existing jail management systems.
- Training and support: Training staff on wearable technologies is essential for successful implementation. Agencies should ensure all employees are fully trained on how to operate the devices and understand the benefits they provide.
- Funding: Conduct a cost analysis and research potential areas for funding such as grants or other private avenues.
Conclusion
As county jails in California and elsewhere face increasing challenges around inmate safety, officer safety and rising litigation costs, wearable technologies could offer a promising solution. These devices can help monitor inmate movements, detect medical emergencies and reduce the workload on overburdened officers.
The future of jail management will be shaped by how counties adapt to new challenges and opportunities, including the integration of wearable technology. However, successful implementation will require careful planning. Stakeholder engagement and a commitment to the protection of individual rights is critical. As counties continue to grapple with the complexities of jail management, investing in advanced technologies like wearables could provide a strategic advantage in maintaining safe and secure custodial settings for all.
References
1. Sosa A. Newsom has approved three California prison closures but resists pressure to shutter more. Los Angeles Times. April 2024.
2. Timm A. Telehealth in correctional facilities: transforming inmate health with wearable technology. Corrections1. June 2024.
3. Brennan Center for Justice. Shut the revolving door of prison. April 2015.
4. Duara N, Kimelman J. California jails are holding thousands fewer people, but far more are dying in them. CalMatters. March 2024.
5. iSmarch. iSmarch advanced offender monitoring solutions – beyond the ankle bracelet.
6. Burgess M. This surveillance system tracks inmates down to their heart rate. Wired. June 2023.
7. Vivalink. Wearable technology: advancing correctional healthcare solutions. August 2024.
8. Ward K. ‘Like an extra set of eyes’: Ky. jails use new technology to help monitor inmates’ health. Corrections1. December 2023.
9. Dorchester D. Wristwatched: A new frontier of health monitoring in prisons. Electronic Privacy Information Center. August 2024.
10. Stolting S, Barrett SM, Kurz D. Best practices guide: Acquisition of new technology. International Association of Chiefs of Police. August 2018.
11. US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Law enforcement tech guide. 2002.
12. Faeth F. IT project failure rates: facts and reasons. LinkedIn. March 2022.
About the author
Captain Logan Stonehouse was born and raised in Redding, California. He was hired with the Plumas County Sheriff’s Office in August 2003 and worked patrol for approximately 4½ years. He was hired with the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office in February 2008. He has held the positions of detective, sergeant, administrative sergeant, lieutenant and captain. He currently serves as custody division captain.
Captain Stonehouse received his bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from California Coast University in December 2022. He is currently enrolled in the master’s program. He also has his POST Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, Supervisory and Management certificates.