By: Michelle Kirby

A 2010 law established a pilot program to allow Connecticut courts to order GPS devices (ankle bracelets) to be used to track family violence offenders. Under this law, the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division (CSSD) implemented the Alert Notification/GPS program in the Bridgeport, Danielson, and Hartford judicial districts. CSSD’s preliminary report on the program indicated that it met its objective to (1) enhance monitoring of high-risk family violence offenders and (2) increase victim safety. The December 2011 final summary report concluded that the program was successfully implemented in all three court locations with a high degree of collaboration systemwide.

Hartford: Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research, 2023. 4p.

By The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Electronic monitoring was supposed to replace cash bail. If this is a failure, what's happening to the people that are supposed to be released and monitored? Maybe placing bail on people that are a threat to society or are going to commit more crime is a good thing. Especially seeing that other methods of controlling people as they are out awaiting trial is not working.

Rethinking Electronic Monitoring: A Harm Reduction Guide, calls on jurisdictions to replace electronic monitoring with less restrictive and more effective measures, such as court reminders and transportation assistance. The report also outlines ways jurisdictions can mitigate the harms of monitoring in accordance with due process and fairness principles

New York: ACLU, 2022. 24p.

By Miranda Boone, Matthijs van der Kooij and Stephanie Rap

This report describes in detail the current use of electronic monitoring (EM) in the Netherlands. The research forms part of an EU-funded comparative research study involving five jurisdictions, namely: Belgium, England & Wales, Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland. The research involved a partnership between academics in five universities: University of Leeds (England & Wales), University of Stirling (Scotland), University of Greifswald (Germany), Free University Bruxelles (Belgium) and Utrecht University (the Netherlands). This comparative research focuses on the potential of electronic monitoring to provide a credible and workable alternative to imprisonment. As such, the empirical findings from the five jurisdictions will fill a significant knowledge gap about the capacity of EM to operate as an alternative to imprisonment and inform on best practices to enhance its effectiveness and ensure its legal, ethical and humane use across Europe. The report is based on observations within the organisations involved in the implementation of EM and 36 interviews with practitioners. The structure of this research report and the way in which headings are organized is a replication of a format adopted consistently across the five country reports.

Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University, 2016. 99p.