Jt Legis Stdy Cmte on Global Position System Monitoring

Speakers Present

Kathy Waters, Director, Adult Probation Services Division, Administrative Office of the Courts

Therese Wagner, Maricopa County Adult Probation (MCAP)

Sandra Pavell, Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC)

Dennis Doffing, Omnilink

OPENING REMARKS

Cochair Waring welcomed the Committee members and others present.

Cochair Knaperek thanked those who are working on the project.

PRESENTATIONS

Kathy Waters, Director, Adult Probation Services Division, Administrative Office of the Courts, presented an overview of Global Position System (GPS) Monitoring: Implementing S.B. 1371 (Attachment 1).

In response to query from Cochair Waring, Ms. Waters explained that the list entitled Maricopa County Adult Probation Department Sex Offender Program GPS Eligible Cases (Attachment 2) includes those persons currently under supervision who would fall into the category required under Senate Bill 1371 if they had been sentenced after the passage of the bill. She said the best predictor of the future is looking at the past.

Therese Wagner, Maricopa County Adult Probation, in response to query from Cochair Waring, said that as of November 1, 2006 to December 9, 2006, the list (Attachment 2) includes persons who have gone through the court system. Only four persons are currently enrolled in the Global Position System (GPS) Monitoring, and the remainder are being processed through the system.

Ms. Waters explained the list consists of persons currently on probation, many of whom have done prison or jail time.

Ms. Waters continued with her presentation, projecting that for Fiscal Year 2007,
(November 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007), 137 additional persons committing dangerous crimes against children will be sentenced to probation, estimating that to be approximately 17 offenders statewide per month. Projections for Fiscal Year 2008 include an additional 205 dangerous crimes against children.

Ms. Waters explained that on October 24, 2006, Administrative Order No. 2006-90 was signed by Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, which established a statewide GPS Monitoring Program pursuant to Section A.R.S. 13-902(G), and allows the Administrative Office of the Court to adopt policies and procedures and to fund probation departments for these monitoring services.

Ms. Waters said that to become familiar with GPS and various vendors, the Court staff visited locations in Arizona, such as the Arizona State Hospital, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC), and probation departments. They also made calls to various probation departments in other states. Talking with probation officers offered information regarding the practicality of everyday supervision using GPS. The Court staff went to the State of Colorado to view their community supervision, parole, and probation cases, which was very informative. Next, a contract request for price (RFP) for vendor selection was issued via a panel which included Adult Probation, the ADOC and the Arizona State Hospital. The contract was awarded, protocols have been established with the vendor as to response, statewide training has started, and policy development meetings have begun.

Ms. Waters explained there are two types of electronic monitoring. Passive GPS, which stores location data, is downloaded and transmitted to the vendor by the end of the day. The information and reports are sent to the Probation Department. Active GPS, which is near real time, involves information being transmitted constantly to a Probation Department and to the vendor via cellular towers. GPS software has the programming capability to provide restrictions, alerts, i.e. a probation officer can designate inclusion and exclusion zones for each offender.

Cochair Waring asked about costs.

Ms.Waters responded active monitoring costs are $8.45 per day plus $1 for manual screening (to be done by vendor). Passive monitoring costs are: level 1 - $3.95 per day, level 2 - $4.95, and level 3 - $4.95, plus $1 for manual screening.

Senator Garcia noted that currently a person who is monitored without GPS is responsible for the cost of the monitoring bracelet.

Ms. Waters said at this time costs are not incurred by the offender.

Protech was selected for the GPS contract, protocols have been drafted which will be part of the amended contract.

Statewide training of 115 surveillance and probation officers began in October 2006. The GPS process is very labor intensive for the probation officers. Super user monitors have been installed, two in Maricopa County, two in Pima County, and two in Yavapai County. Monitoring has begun in Maricopa and Pima County. Yavapai County will cover and help analyze data for the northern counties, and Pima County will do the same for the southern counties. Monitoring will assist officers in the interpretation of the information received on the GPS reports for each offender. The line officers will actually install the equipment, determine curfews, inclusion and exclusion zones, and respond to violations. The regional monitoring analysts will enter data, review daily reports and interact with the officers and the vendors. First response alerts by Protech call center resolve in low level alerts, which notify the Adult Probation Department 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7).

GPS is a condition of probation. There are uniform conditions of probation. The sentencing judge will know if a person is charged with a dangerous crime against children, and the probation officer will be notified to put that person under GPS.

Ms. Houde asked what is happening in northern and southern Arizona and how the program will affect Native Americans. Ms. Waters replied that Ms. Wagner would report on persons placed on GPS since November 1, 2006. She noted there are no violators in the northern or southern part of the state at this time. There are limitations statewide wherein cellular phones will not work or areas where a person may not have access to a phone system. Officer response to alerts in certain areas of the state could take up to two hours. Challenges include time, distance, location where equipment is located, and response. She said the use of the program in Indian reservations is a huge issue.

In response to query from Mrs. Knaperek, Ms. Waters explained the difference between standard probation and intensive probation. She said the type of probation imposed has to do with the history of the offender, the risk level, and the seriousness of the offense. Those who require more intensive monitoring include offenders who have violated a condition of standard probation. There are low -risk offenders, wherein the fact they have been caught indicates most will not likely offend again, and will require a lower level of supervision. Offenders in the middle will require more monitoring in the hope of changing behavior. Intensive supervision includes offenders, mostly risk driven, by telling them every move they can make, and these offenders should be under GPS.

Cochair Knaperek asked if society would benefit most if the offenders on intensive supervision were on active GPS rather than passive GPS. Ms. Waters said her opinion is that persons who have a higher risk of re-offending would benefit from active GPS, if there were the ability to have adequate staffing, monitoring, and 24/7 response.

Cochair Knaperek asked if, within the intensive probation group, some offenders are higher risk than others. Ms. Waters replied there are levels within the structure of intensive probation. Senate Bill 1371 targets persons convicted of a certain crime, which could fall into low level, or low-risk offenders. The protocol to implement the bill has been to incorporate the targeting of risk offenders into the supervision strategy and that is why an active and passive system has been created. She emphasized that there are no probation officers who are able to respond 24/7.

Cochair Knaperek said she is concerned that GPS should be used only for those offenders who require it. She asked if instead of classifying offenders by their crime, would it be better to have an active or passive probation system.

Ms. Waters responded that would be best determined based on the instruments and knowledge the Probation Department has at the time a person is placed on probation. She explained a Standardized Risk Needs Assessment, which has been validated for the entire state, is used for each person. She said it would make more sense if the Probation Department could match each person to the type of monitoring the probationer needs. Some chief probation officers have said they would rather have the ability to use GPS on any type of offender, not just for offenders who commit dangerous crimes against children.

Cochair Knaperek commented that she had been approached last year by a person who was being stalked, and that it would be great for the stalker to be monitored.

Ms. Shriro commented the issue is money rather than legislation. There is the authority to impose conditions of supervision commiserate with risk, and the challenge becomes a matter of resources, not only for equipment but also for staff. A person classified as low or high risk today may later be reclassified, and that is why the systems continue to periodically evaluate the population with current instruments and make adjustments in the supervision strategies. She explained that virtually everyone in the system has pled guilty per plea agreement, and the crime an offender is charged with, as opposed to the crime in the plea, are frequently quite different.

Cochair Knaperek responded that there is not just a question of money, but also the education of the Legislature.

Senator Garcia said it is his understanding that intensive probation offenders are already closely monitored, and asked what would be gained from using a GPS device on such an offender.

Ms. Waters suggested the probation officer or team cannot be everywhere 24/7, and the GPS gives an additional tool to officers to monitor offenders. She stressed the S.B. 1375 currently mandates that even a youthful offender be placed on GPS, and a more dangerous person, who was not convicted of a dangerous crime against children, may need to be placed on GPS.

Ms. Houde said that in reviewing the list of offenders in Attachment 3, 80 to 90 percent of the victims are family or close acquaintances of the offenders, and asked how the GPS monitoring can help a child who is returned to a family wherein the father, brother, etc., was an offender.

Ms. Wagner responded that in the described situation, an offender would not be allowed back in the home unless, or until, certain criteria are met.

In response to query from Mrs. Knaperek, Ms. Wagner responded that Child Protective Services (CPS) is not always involved in these cases.

Ms. Johnson added that there are statewide assessment tools used by the probation department to determine risk. For sex offenders, there is the Sex Offender Risk Profile to aid in determining the need for supervision of an offender.

Therese Wagner, Maricopa County Adult Probation (MCAP), presented the Maricopa County Adult Probation Sex Offender Program, Global Positioning System (GPS) Implementation
(Attachment 3). She also explained the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department Sex Offender Program GPS Eligible Cases (Attachment 2). She said currently 39 cases have been identified as dangerous crimes against children, 13 of the cases have been sentenced to probation or probation with jail, four are enrolled on the streets (2 adult males, one 18 year old female and one 16 year old male); eleven have a prison sentence with a probation tail, and the rest are either pending or incarcerated. One case is a non-sex offender dangerous crime against children, a child abuse case, which came through CPS, wherein the mother was intoxicated and turned on scalding water which burned her child. Her sentence is a jail term ending February, followed by a probation term on GPS.

Ms. Johnson noted that when risk profiles are determined for offenders, sex offenders often score in the minimum risk level because scoring factors include drug and/or alcohol use, and prior criminal history. Many sex offenders do not have these risk factors. This does not mean that the probation departments ultimately consider such offenders as low-risk.

Ms. Wagner said for an active GPS system to be effective, there must be infrastructure to provide 24 hour per day, 7 days per week (24/7) capability, which the Adult Probation Department (APD) is not currently able to accommodate, and that is a resource issue. She explained that there is a lag time in rural areas when an alert is received, which is another resource issue. She noted that GPS informs the APD where an offender has been, but does not necessarily prevent crime, nor describe with whom the offender is. Surveillance officers are still required to meet with offenders.

Ms. Wagner said it would be better to look at offender risk as opposed to the offense.

Sandra Pavell, Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC), said that the ADOC has begun implementing Senate Bill 1371. Effective June 22, 2006, all offenders released from the ADOC who have a current or past conviction for dangerous crimes against children are placed on GPS monitoring, which affected 62 offenders, 60 of these were convicted of sex crimes and two were convicted of child abuse. Of the 62 offenders, 16 were released to a private residence, and one has had a warrant issued for a technical violation; one was released to the Arizona State Hospital as a sexually violent person; three were released to detainers for deportation through the Immigration Naturalization System (INS); three were placed in care facilities; the remaining 42 were released homeless because the law required their release. Thirteen of these 42 were approved to live in a private sector halfway house or motel; 29 were approved to live in a shelter of the Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS). Of these 29 offenders, warrants for technical violations and for absconded supervision have been issued for six, and three of the 29 have successfully completed their community supervision. Twenty offenders currently remain at the CASS.

Dennis Doffing, Omnilink, said Omnilink provides GPS tracking services nationwide.
Mr. Doffing said he has been doing electronic monitoring since 1988 when he was working in probation and parole in Minnesota. Omnilink was founded a few years ago, headquarters are in Georgia, and the core business is offender management. The company philosophy is to track anything, anytime, anywhere, and approximately 2,300 offenders are currently on tracking. The GPS ankle device is a one-piece unit, which is 100 percent waterproof, with dual tamper detection and fiber optic cables built in, which is not unique to Omnilink. What is unique to Omnilink is both GPS and cellular tracking, using the Sprint network, which allows tracking through shopping malls, buildings, tunnels, etc. Omnilink offers variable tracking, both passive and active. Tracking can be done every five to ten minutes. On the passive level, tracking is done every 15 to 30 minutes and reports are in real time. This allows the customer to pick the tracking level for each individual offender. The battery life of the ankle device is up to 60 hours.

Mr. Doffing said Omnilink could track the cell phone of a victim, and instruct the offender to stay 1,000 feet from that cell phone. The victim will receive a text message to let her know an offender is in her zone and another if the offender leaves that zone.

In response to query from Cochair Waring, Mr. Doffing replied if the offender removes the device, a report is generated immediately, in both the passive or active mode.

Cochair Knaperek said she and Cochair Waring have concerns that the current statute is inflexible, and is being interpreted too broadly. For example, perhaps the mother who scalded her child does not need to be on GPS. She said the Committee will be making recommendations for changing the statute and asked for ideas to provide more flexibility in the determination of who should, or should not be, on the GPS. She said the intent of the bill is to target sex crimes against children, not abuse situations.

Ms. Waters said she believes the ability to make decisions on everything the probation offices know about supervision would be beneficial, rather than painting with a broad brush. She stated that around the country, the GPS device is used for serious offenders who pose a risk to the public, and if the statute focused on that, resources could be saved.

Ms. Waters explained that in Maricopa County, many, if not all, offenders convicted of sex crimes are placed on lifetime probation, and asked if the ADP would follow these people through GPS for their lifetime. She said a 16 year old offender could be placed on lifetime GPS.

Cochair Waring said that after looking at the GPS Eligible Cases (Attachment 2) and being aware of what the offenders did, if someone is sentenced to lifetime probation, and will be monitored by GPS, then so be it. He said he is sad to see that some of these people are getting out at all, and would not want them as his neighbor. They will be somebody’s neighbor.

Ms. Schriro stated there are over 1,800 individuals in the ADOC doing “Con” for the most serious charge of this offense. She explained that research literature states that if you deliver evidence-based sex offender treatment, for the correct duration of time, the probability of relapse to sexual offending is remarkably reduced. Ms. Schriro commended the Committee for tackling what is a very difficult and emotional issue. She said it appears as if the Committee is continuing to commit to get to the root causes of how to leverage resources for the best and longest lasting public safety, and perhaps continue the conversation with more discussion about the different kinds of sex offenders, because they are not all the same. Some will stop offending by virtue of their discovery, and others are virtually intractable and are not amenable to treatment. The vast majority are in the middle, and while they will be an expensive group to manage, the money could probably be better used now than in the past.

Cochair Waring said the Committee would like to cover more people under the GPS system than they can, but does not want to waste money using GPS on people where it will not be helpful. GPS should be used for the most dangerous people.

Ms. Houde stressed the majority of sex offenders abuse family members, simply because of the convenience of a child being in the next room, and that is not a threat to the public.

Ms. Wagner stressed that the offense is one factor, whether it happened in a home or not, but the assessment will cover a holistic view of the offender to determine risk.

Cochair Knaperek said she has three motions that she will read and then ask for comments.

Cochair Waring noted the motions are not legislation but rather suggestions to the Legislature, and then a bill, or bills, would need to be drafted.

Cochair Knaperek asked if the motions as written could be put into effect without legislation so that the ADP would have more flexibility in interpreting the current legislation.

Ms. Schriro said a generous amount of money has been received to implement the legislation, and if the money is triaged by expenditure of money to high risk offenders, she believes the statute could be interpreted and implemented using money for those who demonstrate the greatest need.

Ms. Johnson commented that the legislation must not specify dangerous crimes against children (DCAC), because the way it is written, it would require implementation of GPS on every DCAC offender.

Cochair Knaperek read the recommendations:

1. The Committee recommends the Legislature amend the existing program created through Laws 2006, Chapter 368 to allow the affected agencies more flexibility in assigning any offender to GPS based on the agency’s assessment of the offender based on offenders that pose a high risk to the public.

Ms. Johnson asked if that motion goes beyond the sex offender.

Cochair Knaperek responded it does, that it goes more to the criminal than the crime.

Cochair Knaperek said that Cochair Waring’s recommendation is:

2. The Committee recommends that the Legislature continue the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Global Position System Monitoring for one year and add two public members to the membership of the committee.

Cochair Waring said as the bill is currently drafted, the Committee would be a “one shot deal,” they would make recommendations and that would be it, but he wants to go forward and have more meetings and data.

Cochair Knaperek read the final recommendation:

3. The Committee recommends that the Legislature establish an active global positioning system pilot program for sex offenders. To accomplish this goal, the Legislature should:

a) Determine the scope of the pilot program;

b) Provide funding for the pilot program;

c) Authorize an ad-hoc committee for the purpose of monitoring the pilot program.

Cochair Waring said these recommendations would not supersede what is currently being done.

Ms. Schriro asked to add to the recommendation that the Committee broaden the inquiry beyond GPS to those strategies which include GPS to leverage maximum public safety, for example to consider treatment and other issues.

In response to a request from Cochair Knaperek for further explanation in terms of treatment,
Ms. Schriro said that treatment is typically lengthy in duration, at least two years. In ADOC the offender may not be incarcerated for that full term and has a probation tail, so that it would start there to improve the likelihood of success of probation, and if not, the certainty would be continued if the offender were sent to jail or prison.

Cochair Waring suggested the Committee focus only on GPS for this meeting.

Ms. Johnson suggested that the recommendation to not identify a special population of sex offender, but any offender who posed a risk to the community, becomes overbroad, and would draw in subjectivity by those who are supervising offenders in the community and making those decisions.

Cochair Waring suggested the Committee adopt only recommendations two and three at this time.

Cochair Knaperek noted that whatever recommendations are made, there is a concern.

Cochair Knaperek moved that “The Committee recommends that the

Legislature continue the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Global

Position System Monitoring for one year and add two public members

to the membership of the committee.” The motion carried by voice vote.

Cochair Knaperek moved that “The Committee recommends that the

Legislature establish an active global position system pilot program for

sex offenders. To accomplish this goal, the Legislature should:

a) Determine the scope of the pilot program;

b) Provide funding for the pilot program;

c) Authorize an ad-hoc committee for the purpose of monitoring

the pilot program.”

The motion carried by voice vote.

Cochair Waring said there are no other persons present who request to speak.

Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

_______________________________

Yvette O’Connor, Committee Secretary

December 13, 2006

(Original minutes, attachments and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------

JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON

GLOBAL POSITION SYSTEM MONITORING

December 13, 2006

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------

Members Present

Members Absent

Speakers Present