Few inmates on electronic monitoring are arrested for new crimes
Photo 
Robert Spoden
Photo 
Erik D. Chellevold
JANESVILLE Rock County Jail officials point to the success of electronic monitoring as a reason to put more offenders into the community on bracelets.
Since January 2007, fewer than 1 percent of Rock County offenders on electronic monitoring have been arrested for new crimes, according to data obtained from the Rock County Sheriff’s Office.
Fifteen of 2,138 offenders on electronic monitoring have been arrested for new crimes such as disorderly conduct, theft or drug possession, according to arrest reports.
The most serious crimes include felony battery while armed and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
The Gazette filed a request under the Wisconsin Open Records Law for reports stemming from people arrested while on electronic monitoring.
The documents reveal that 0.7 percent of offenders were arrested while in the program, a testament to the success of electronic monitoring and its ability to supervise offenders, officials said.
“I’m cautiously optimistic that it will continue to be that low, but we realize we could have a rash of arrests in the next year,” Cmdr. Erik Chellevold said.
The county had an average of 85 offenders a day on electronic monitoring in 2010. At its peak, about 110 people were on electronic monitoring.
The program began in 1998 but ramped up in January 2007 when Sheriff Bob Spoden took office. Offenders who meet certain requirements can serve their jail sentence in the community if they go on electronic monitoring.
The sheriff’s office carefully reviews who can be on electronic monitoring to ensure the community is safe, Sgt. Brent DeRemer said.
Offenders with felony drug, sex or child abuse charges are not allowed on electronic monitoring, he said. Criminal history also is researched to ensure the offender isn’t a risk.
Offenders can wear two different ankle bracelets.
One bracelet is equipped with GPS and tracks the offender’s whereabouts, DeRemer said. The second detects whether the offender drinks alcohol. Some offenders wear both.
The person wearing a bracelet submits a schedule they must follow, he said. The bracelets alert the sheriff’s office if the schedule is broken.
Exclusion zones can be drawn to keep an offender away from locations, such as a victim’s home or taverns, DeRemer said. If the person enters the zone, the sheriff’s office is alerted and can call the offender or send a deputy.
Inclusion zones also can be drawn to make sure an offender stays within certain boundaries, such as a home or work, Chellevold said.
Deputies often check on offenders on electronic monitoring, Spoden said. The checks are spontaneous at all hours of the day.
Officials can monitor the offenders from a computer 24 hours a day, DeRemer said.
Spoden said the technology of electronic monitoring provides for more supervision than Huber dormitory inmates sent into the community every day with work-release privileges.
He said Huber inmates aren’t supervised from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. while out of jail. He said electronic monitoring also is cheaper than housing Huber inmates.
“I think electronic monitoring inmates are more secure and monitored more closely on the bracelet program than they are on Huber,” Spoden said. “This is the wave of the future for incarcerating low-risk offenders who aren’t a danger to the community.”
Chellevold said some offenders recognize the closer scrutiny and complain about being on electronic monitoring.
“We’ve had people out on electronic monitoring who have wanted to come off and be in jail because it’s too restrictive,” he said.
Placing offenders on electronic monitoring reduces the jail population and saves money, officials said. Offenders can stay employed, continue school or stay with their families.
Spoden said alternative programs such as electronic monitoring solved the county’s jail overcrowding situation in 2007 and saved it from paying other counties to house Rock County inmates.
The programs also saved the county from paying for a $56 million jail expansion, he said. The jail population today is below capacity.
Chellevold said the jail is safer for inmates and correctional officers because of the reduced inmate population. He said money is being saved on medical care and food service.
The sheriff’s office wants to continue growing the program in the future, Spoden said, and the Huber program could someday be abandoned.


Jan 22, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
personally I think a repeat drunk driver is a risk to society (of course, ANY drunk driver is a risk to society...it's whether the drunk driver has been caught yet-and how many times)--so what determines "violent"? that's primarily outlined in the statutes; however, the RISK to society is what the probation officers, RCJ, and judges need to evaluate in order to reduce jail/prison populations, AND (but?) keep the violent offenders in custody.
Jan 21, 2011 at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
if it's good enough for paris and lynsie it's good enough for me..
Jan 21, 2011 at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
There's a duty to protect the citizens by locking up violent criminals, yes. Keeping non-violent and minor criminals out of the jail is actually BETTER for the community in the long run. In jail, some who have committed minor crimes become better criminals while they are locked up with violent criminals and criminals with no desire to become a better person. I think the home detention is a perfect solution to a growing problem.
To answer the question about when/if the system is down...the Probation and Parole officers have the charge of picking up the inmates on home detention and transporting them to jail. It's possible, but unlikely that the community would be exposed to some risk. The violent offenders (with a well-run system) would not qualify for a home detention option in the first place.
Jan 21, 2011 at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The time for honoring himself will soon be at an end."
Jan 18, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
truecitizen, you just showed me you have nothing to back up your assertions. Thanks.
Jan 17, 2011 at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
I suppose you Janesvillean also have concrete proof? SarahB1 soft approach to everything...and the truth here is too annoying to continue talking about. Out.
Jan 17, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry, can't let this one go......
“We’ve had people out on electronic monitoring who have wanted to come off and be in jail because it’s too restrictive,”? I bet there’s ocean front land for sale next to the Sheriff’s Department too!
I generally support the Gazette and most of its reporters but once and a while I am amazed that they allow so many to say whatever they want without question. This statement could of easily been verified.
Jan 17, 2011 at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cool bracelets, can I get one to wear without getting into trouble?
Jan 17, 2011 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
One person's "most obvious" may not be another person's. Could you perhaps clarify your position using something concrete? What numbers are being pushed (aside from the jail costs being pushed down)?
Jan 17, 2011 at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
No. This is not the case. The public is being given cherry-picked information. I believe in the program, but only for the most obvious candidate-offenders. However it is being used as a numbers pusher. Why does this keep happening?
Jan 17, 2011 at 12:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
ive been on it, its a good and sufficient way to change people, your still incarcerated, your just at home and makes ppl feel lucky theyre able to be at home instead of the terribly maintained rock county jail
Jan 16, 2011 at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
marge123, there are quite a large number of variables between electronic monitoring, work release, and incarceration, primarily the type of offense, but generally programs that allow someone to keep their job allow a prisoner to resume their life post-conviction with greater ease and this stability limits recidivism (reoffending). There is generally a drop, but its size and causes are not always clear. There isn't anything showing a generally greater propensity for reoffending.
.
lifeatlab, any punishment regime that does not force an offender into alcohol treatment is unlikely to have a long-term effect on their drunk driving. I don't know what you mean about "the agent", as the GPS and alcohol monitors are not affected by what the offender says.
Jan 16, 2011 at 5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Unless you are going to compare how many people re-offend after serving time in jail versus serving their time at home on the monitor, the "percentage of offensives" (offenses?) after serving time on the monitor is meaningless information.
Jan 16, 2011 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
What is the percentage of offensives when they are done with "the program"?
Jan 16, 2011 at 4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sounds like a great program.
Jan 16, 2011 at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just to add placing repeat drunk drivers with more than 5 convictions on parole and probation is a waste of time, they do whatever they want,electronic monitoring might do them some good.But sincerely doubt it. They just feed a bunch of bs to the agent!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.