Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Annual report: juvenile electronic monitoring skews pre‑disposition; malfunctions higher than adults
Summary
JRAC’s calendar‑year 2025 report showed electronic monitoring is used more pre‑disposition than post, juvenile device malfunctions occur two to three times more than adults, and fee levies vs. collections show quarter‑to‑quarter inconsistencies.
Chris presented the JRAC annual report for calendar year 2025 and said the data are largely descriptive but actionable.
The report showed that juvenile electronic monitoring skews toward pre‑dispositional use across most quarters, with categories of offenses dominated by crimes against persons. Chris summarized offense levels and average quarterly volumes (for example, pre‑dispositional averages for certain categories were reported in the presentation). "It is calendar year 2025," he said, describing the timeframe used for the report.
The report noted successful discharge was the most common outcome, followed by technical violations and new charges. Chris highlighted a technical finding that juvenile malfunction rates (battery failures, damaged units) are "consistently two or three times higher than that of the adult rate," increasing the time case managers spend resolving device problems.
The presentation also reviewed fees levied and collected for juvenile monitoring and found notable inconsistencies between quarters: some quarters reflected higher levies but lower collections. Chris said the counties generally comply with reporting requirements and estimated a high county reporting rate for the submitted quarterly data.
Council members asked about whether pre‑dispositional monitoring status carries forward post‑disposition and about collection practices; Chris said that question required follow up and that the reporting is descriptive by design. He attached the full report to the meeting materials for members who wanted detailed tables and county comparisons.
Next steps: JRAC staff and the data work group will consider targeted follow‑up questions to add to future surveys and examine whether monitoring status is tracked across the pre‑/post‑disposition boundary.
